[juner]

According to Pete's source:

As of 1 October 2014, Section 30A provides for fair dealing as a defence in cases where the infringement was for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche.[26] The Intellectual Property Office suggests that a "parody" is something that imitates a work for humorous or satirical effect, a "pastiche" is a composition that is made up of selections from various sources or one that imitates the style of another artist or period, and that a "caricature" is something that portrays its subject in a simplified or exaggerated way, whether insulting or complimentary and whether for a political purpose or solely for entertainment.

What work is being imitated in the video? It is animated, but appears to take itself seriously. I suppose it could be considered a humorous visual aid, but the narration is anything but that humorous or satirical.

[markjo]

Okay, so I broke down and watched the video.  It seems to me that Mr. Denier fits the provided description of a caricature of a stereotypical denier.

"... a "caricature" is something that portrays its subject in a simplified or exaggerated way, whether insulting or complimentary..."

[AATW]

this man is introduced at the beginning where they say in the same sentence people deny things like climate change, the holocaust or the shape of the earth. Because all these things are really similar right? 

Well, there is an obvious similarity in that in all 3 cases a metric shit-ton of evidence is being denied.

Holocaust deniers are ignoring the fact that Auschwitz-Birkenau is demonstrably there, has all the evidence of mass slaughter and there are a load of witnesses and first hand testimony to the events

Climate change deniers are ignoring the more-or-less scientific consensus on this issue which is based on a load of data and that the climate is demonstrably changing - I'm in my 40s and the difference from my childhood is notiable.

Flat earthers are denying pretty much the whole of science and ignoring the global space programmes and the hundreds of people who have been to space and so can give first hand testimony about the shape of the earth.


It does require a certain mindset and it's interesting that you deny any link when you yourself fit into 2 of the above categories.

[Pete Svarrior]

markjo: if you want to discuss your lack of understanding of the definitions of fair dealing or caricature, please do so in the appropriate forum. I'm going to be nice and not immediately ban you, but you need to drop your schtick in the upper fora pronto. Warned.

Dr Van Nostrand: That's pretty much the approach I'm taking. I've submitted a complaint following their procedure and am currently awaiting their stage 1 response. We'll see how that goes.

AATW: TFES at large is fairly well known for its acceptance of climate change (that whole Obama thing solicited a fair few statements to that effect which were widely covered by the media). This isn't a case of stating an implicit link which may or may not be true, it's a case of stating something that's known to be untrue (and which the BBC itself previously covered). That flies in the face of the Beeb's Royal Charter.

[Dr David Thork]

It does require a certain mindset and it's interesting that you deny any link when you yourself fit into 2 of the above categories.

And let's make sure for the record that we stipulate the two I question are earth's shape and climate change ... because the other is a whole different thing. And that's the issue I have with the BBC's video.

[disputeone]

It does require a certain mindset and it's interesting that you deny any link when you yourself fit into 2 of the above categories.

And let's make sure for the record that we stipulate the two I question are earth's shape and climate change ... because the other is a whole different thing. And that's the issue I have with the BBC's video.

Why should we give a crap about any other race? Treat these people as they would treat us if they were powerful. By exterminating them. 

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

[Dr David Thork]

Don't quote mine me. 

I'm allowed to have a change of heart, any time I like. And today I don't want millions of people dead because that won't help me win this online debate. Tomorrow however,  is another day.

[Pete Svarrior]

The BBC responded to my complaint. It's a boilerplate response, stating that they didn't do anything wrong and that they'll be editing the video to remove our logo from it.

The "We didn't do nothing wrong but we'll comply with your request to fix it" response is telling. I'm going to insist that they publish a clarification/apology, but at this stage we at least have a partial success.

[Dr David Thork]

Please tell me you managed to get a copy of the video before they take it down.

You may wish to draw the BBC's attention to the correct bit of legal infringement.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/80

[Pete Svarrior]

I informed them that their argument has no merit, but the copyright issue is not the major one here. After all, they could have used our logo with no issue if they simply credited it to us/Blanko.

I've tried to get a copy of the video, but for some reasons all my attempts at ripping it cut off towards the end. In any case, I have the first 2 minutes and 45 seconds of the video backed up, which covers the point succinctly.

EDIT: Wow, they already censored it! The badge is now tastefully blurred.

[titidam]

Shame, I liked the other version better.

Can we petition to bring it back?

[Pete Svarrior]

Shame, I liked the other version better.

Can we petition to bring it back?

You can do whatever you want, but posting without meaningfully contributing to the threads will earn you a warning. Or, rather, it just did.

[Dr David Thork]

I informed them that their argument has no merit, but the copyright issue is not the major one here. After all, they could have used our logo with no issue if they simply credited it to us/Blanko.

I've tried to get a copy of the video, but for some reasons all my attempts at ripping it cut off towards the end. In any case, I have the first 2 minutes and 45 seconds of the video backed up, which covers the point succinctly.

EDIT: Wow, they already censored it! The badge is now tastefully blurred.

Yeah, they know they cant do that ... and so the apology?

[Pete Svarrior]

We'll see what they have to say on the apology/clarification front. Given how fast they've worked on the edit, it looks like they know they've cocked up. Just a a question of whether they'll admit it.

[Dr David Thork]

Well they have to admit it. They did it and they are in the wrong. Changing the video is the first admission of that.

[stack]

Well they have to admit it. They did it and they are in the wrong. Changing the video is the first admission of that.

Do they have to admit it or just cease and desist?

[Pete Svarrior]

It's not clear-cut, since it would depend on the assessment of the severity of the misinformation, but most non-trivial inaccuracies require a clarification.

Of course, their current line is that they haven't misinformed at all and that they're just removing the logo because they're nice like that.

[Tom Bishop]

I took at look at the video. The narrator believes that we got into Flat Earth Theory because of our inability to deal with something that is "difficult, threatening, or embarrassing"?

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Dr David Thork]

They also don't know the difference between scientific denial which usually hinges on suspicions of mal-funding, poor application of the scientific method and government conspiracy, and political denial which is usually down to prejudices, hate and radicalisation.

[Rushy]

Some BBC employee likely just googled "flat earth society" and chose the first picture that google gives them, which is simply this site's logo. It's doubtful that they intended to single out this website in particular.