James O’Keefe: ‘This Is the Year That We End Fake News’

Breitbart ^ | Penny Starr

[WildHighlander57]

In post #24, I stated what I saw, and what I didn’t see; that is an observation, not an attack.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3566012/posts?page=24#24

In post #39, I asked whether permission was granted to use the high-resolution pix and vid clips in the book and DVD; that is a valid question, not an attack.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3566012/posts?page=39#39

Excerpts for fair use discussion are OK; anything further and —especially— for profit require permission from the owner of the original footage.

[newfreep]

Thanks for outing yourself as a phony freeper who attacks a patriot and her work to expose Obamatollah’s evil & fraud.

Now STOP “cc” me in your communist posts!

[4Zoltan]

“Explain to me, from physics, how the plane can teeter on a fulcrum”

It’s not, it is floating and pivoting on the wings for the up and down motion and pivoting on the fuselage for the side to side motion.

“Perhaps you can explain it to the antagonistic physics professor who ultimately had to agree that the plane was on a fulcrum.”

What’s his name - when he sees the whole video I bet he changes his mind.

“Explain to me, from physics, how multiple passengers held their bodies out of the water with their lifejacket either uninflated or high above the surface of the water. In Rosa’s case she was able to effortlessly stay up out of the water while her upper body was hunched over, even.”

In the case of Rosa - she is floating on a seat cushion and lying on her stomach. So her head and shoulders are out of the water. In the case of Puentes, he is lying on his stomach and has to arch his back to keep his head out of water so his shoulder and head are out of the water. It would depend a lot on their personal center of gravity and center of buoyancy. They are not standing on anything.

“Oh, and you might want to tell the scientific community that their bathymetric maps are all inaccurate too.”

The maps are correct - the calculations that place the plane directly on top of the shoals is faulty.

“Why do you think Puentes had two Go-Pros and additional equipment ready at the time the camera started rolling?”

One GoPro on a monopole and one for in his hand. One in a waterproof case and one not. Pure speculation on both of our parts.

BTW, this other guy GoProed his commercial jet making a crash landing when a landing gear collapsed. It happens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwYmMG61VDk

“that they had to poison my husband so I would be kept busy keeping him clothed and in his right mind.”

As I said before I’m sorry about your husbands situation. dementia is horrific disease that robs a person of their personality. But I have to ask. If the deep state wanted to quiet you - why poison your husband and not you? Seems counter-intuitive.

[butterdezillion]

The high-resolution pics are from the NTSB. They are public information at this point. And already-published images fall under fair use anyway.

Why do you ask?

[butterdezillion]

Who told you that profit necessarily negates “fair use”?

This could be the textbook example of “transformativeness”.

But it’s not about winning a lawsuit, is it? It’s about bankrupting somebody with the threat of having to defend themselves in a lawsuit.

The exact same thing that Zola/interestedbystander threatened to do to me.

Standard M.O. for communists, Islamists, and the deep-state crooks at war with the US Constitution. But I repeat myself.

So why are you - who have posted this same material here - now suddenly thinking it’s a crime for already available-for-free material to be scrutinized in a published work?

[WildHighlander57]

Butterdezillion,

A question was asked, ‘was permission given?’, that’s all.

Excerpts have been posted here, from the low-res footage available at the time, for fair-use & discussion purposes.

It was stated back when the low-res version came out, that the hi-res version wasn’t able to be posted or linked to, and that if it -had- been posted or linked to, then the poster/linker would have gotten in trouble.

And that was the reason the hi-res wasn’t posted or linked to.

That is why the question was raised now, whether the OK had been given to use the hi-res footage in the book & 3-hour DVD.

[butterdezillion]

Who stated that only low-res could be used, and where?

What 3-hour DVD are you talking about?

[4Zoltan]

Just my two cents and IANAL.

I suspect what WildH is talking about is that images from the Puentes’ video might be copyrighted material.

The closest analog I can think of is the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. The National Archives keeps the actual film in its vaults but the film and the copyrights belong to the Zapruder family. Does that mean they enforce the copyright? IDK. But maybe every time the History Channel runs its Kennedy Assassination Week, they have to pay the copyright fees to the Zapruder family.

The for-profit aspect might make a difference.

FWIW, here is an anecdote, we have a good friend who works for DreamWorks Animation. A few years ago he shot a movie in his backyard. This was not a typical home movie as he drew storyboards, built sets and used a $50,000 HD digital camera to film it. The movie had Elvis music in its soundtrack and I asked him if he needed to obtain a copyright waiver. He said no because he was not going to exhibit the film, charge admission to see it or make any money off of it.

[1Old Pro]

One of Trump’s biggest accomplishments in his first few months is aggressively continuing his tweets and taking on the corrupt media head on.

Of course, the media leaves this out - but indeed it is a HUGE accomplishment. Exposing the msm for being as corrupt as they are will erode any minimal credibility they have and render them worthless in the arena of public opinion - their worst nightmare.

[WildHighlander57]

In 2014 you said that the media would not allow you to show the hi-res version.

The “3-hour vid” is mentioned here on this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3566012/posts?page=11#11

[WildHighlander57]

4zoltan,

Good analogy.

Zapruder — Puentes

National Archives — NTSB and ABC/GMA/the media

The crux of the matter is the “for profit” vs “no charge, exhibit or profit”.

Thus my “fair use” vs “for profit” question; was permission sought, and granted, to use the hi-res (or any res for that matter) in the book and 3 hour DVD.

The answer to the question “was permission given” is crucial.

Still haven’t gotten the answer yet.

[4Zoltan]

I believe the Warren Commission also used images from the Zapruder film in their investigation so that might be analogous to the NTSB using Puentes film in its investigation.

[butterdezillion]

They didn’t give me permission so I used it under fair use terms, which I stated in the original “What Do You See?” video.

Why did they want only low-resolution images available, after originally airing higher resolution? If their pixelation was just because of routine downgrading of the bandwidth used (the day I asked my ping list to save the footage before it disappeared altogether - what a coinkydink!) then they should not have any problem with somebody simply showing what they had already decided, themselves, to show the public. But they didn’t want that. When they found out (who told them, I wonder?) that I was looking closely at the video they wanted to change their minds about what to let the public see - for free, I might add, so that any use of the video would cost ABC no monetary loss from people not purchasing their video (which is a critical issue if they intend to claim that our fair use is costing them money.)

Given that the “Nightline” version included commentary saying that this video might shut up the crazy conspiracists (as they showed now-President Donald Trump’s photo), it is really suspect that the very people they claimed they were targeting to convince were then not supposed to be able to actually scrutinize what ABC put out there. What they said on the video strongly implies that the video was of national social import and for historical purposes. And there is NO DOUBT that showing what was actually there on the non-pixelated video - evidence in an NTSB investigation, which is where we got it from - and analyzing that information in light of other publicly-available information... is transformative to the stated purpose on ABC’s broadcast. This video - when seen as it really was, even after heavy editing - does NOT silence the questions of skeptics; it cements them. Transformative.

And the fact that the NTSB falsified the evidence in their final report based on our transformative use of the very evidence they gave to us and to another requester is also..... transformative.

The 3-hour vid referenced is not a DVD; it is from a Hagmann & Hagmann interview that was totally free to the watchers and is embedded in the “The Fuddy Hoax” website to be viewed for free.

Have you even looked at the site to see what is being offered, before changing the subject here from the transformative exposure of NTSB obstruction of justice and Kawasaki’s potential manslaughter, to the subject of whether “fair use” allows us to recover some of the cost of our investigation (though most of the cost can never be recovered; in the words of Princess Bride’s Inigo Montoya, “I want my husband back, you sonofabitch!”)?

Never mind that looking at what was really on the NTSB video is essential to rebutting the potentially libelous insinuations made by the “Nightline” narrator...

Smearing people and then not allowing them to defend themselves with the evidence? Sounds a LOT like what the media is constantly trying to do to folks who fight back against the deep-state corruption. The deep state did the same thing to Lt Col Terry Lakin (shortly after their unconstitutional spying on my communications let them know that Lakin was going to receive evidence that would expose manipulation of the HDOH database that would TRANSFORM the whole issue if Lakin was actually allowed to defend himself in court-martial...transformative to the degree that it would have given Lakin discovery of the original paper and microfilm records, since the electronic records were KNOWN to be manipulated!).

And they are trying to do the same thing to President Donald J Trump. We’re not taking it any more - and it’s WAY PAST TIME for these slimy critters to get a dose of “exposure”.

[4Zoltan]

Butter:

Follow up to this comment you made,

"In Rosa’s case she was able to effortlessly stay up out of the water while her upper body was hunched over, even."

Rosa Key was able to stay up because she was floating on a seat cushion much like it was a boogie board.

At the 7:34 minute mark of the video, Rosa is seen riding a seat cushion:

At the 10:45 mark an underwater shot of her riding the seat cushion:

At the 13:17 mark her is another underwater image of her riding the seat cushion (two frames):

At one second later (13:18 mark) there is an above water image of her hunched over with the PFD out of the water.

Of course in none of the underwater images is the sea floor visible.

BTW, Ferdinand Puentes also was holding on to a seat cushion throughout his filming. It can be seen at the 9:52 mark and the 14:18 mark.

[4Zoltan]

“which is a critical issue if they intend to claim that our fair use is costing them money.”

The video might not belong to ABC or the NTSB.

It might still belong to Puentes. Notice when you view the ABC film, Puentes name is added to it.

You might get a cease and desist order from him.

[humblegunner]

Please stop your attacks on butterdezillion and recognize her work

No.
She's an attention-seeking nutcase.

[LucyT]

At # 53 , butterdezillion wrote:

They (ABC) didn’t give me permission (to use their video) so I used it under fair use terms, which I stated in the original “What Do You See?” video.

[newfreep]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

LOL!

[butterdezillion]

What is your point, Lucy?

[butterdezillion]

You said:

“It was stated back when the low-res version came out, that the hi-res version wasn’t able to be posted or linked to, and that if it -had- been posted or linked to, then the poster/linker would have gotten in trouble.

And that was the reason the hi-res wasn’t posted or linked to.”

Where was it stated that a hi-res version wasn’t able to be posted or linked to? Where was it said that if somebody posted or linked hi-res (the same res that ABC posted on the website that people took and posted screenshots from) they would get “in trouble”?

Please show me where those things were stated.

Also, what is this DVD you keep referring to?

Thanks.