Richard Dawkins Youtube Channel Closed Due to Copyright Infringement

[LastPoet]

If even creationists can DMCA criticism videos, what does that say about the system? Its so easy that a dumbfuck creatard can take down videos, because it offends their big fairy in the sky.

[Tiberius]

Josh Timonen was the shitty admin of RDF forums who is responsible for the place closing down. He was accused of stealing money from the foundation but the case was dismissed. Doesn't surprise me that this piece of scum would sink to abusing copyright law to get back at Dawkins.

[Joy Squeezy]

Richard Dawkins' wonderful Youtube channel was shut down due to copyright claims by Upper Branch Production, which is owned by Josh Timonen. I don't know how that guy sleeps at night. The closing had nothing to do with false DMCAs by religious nutters, but by a vindictive and petty little tosser. I understand Dawkins and some others are disputing it. I don't see how someone else could own videos of Dawkins giving interviews etc. It's bizarre.

[Utracia]

Sounds great for freedom of speech that videos can be taken down so easy.

[Cyberman]

Obviously you missed the Great DMCA War of 2008, when the odious VenomFangX went nuclear on Thunderf00t and ended up having to publicly apologise to the entire internet.

Like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4

This was followed by the Second Great War of 2009, which was basically a rerun of the first one but with added perjury since he could no longer plead ignorance of what he was doing.

[LastPoet]

Poor VFX was never the same again after such pounding

[Cyberman]

No indeed. Poor thing even had to hire a special minder 'friend' to protect him from all those wicked atheists.

As you all know, I'm not usually one for internet drama () but I have to admit there was no more satisfying sight than this one:

[lordpasternack]

Josh Timonen was the shitty admin of RDF forums who is responsible for the place closing down. He was accused of stealing money from the foundation but the case was dismissed. Doesn't surprise me that this piece of scum would sink to abusing copyright law to get back at Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins' wonderful Youtube channel was shut down due to copyright claims by Upper Branch Production, which is owned by Josh Timonen. I don't know how that guy sleeps at night. The closing had nothing to do with false DMCAs by religious nutters, but by a vindictive and petty little tosser. I understand Dawkins and some others are disputing it. I don't see how someone else could own videos of Dawkins giving interviews etc. It's bizarre.

Sorry to have to disappoint you both with some substantive facts of this case.

In response to having been sued, and subsequently having the case against them dismissed with prejudice in August 2011 - Josh Timonen's company, Upper Branch Productions, filed a complaint aganst RDFRS for counts of copyright infringement (amongst other things) in December 2012. This complaint stems from multiple cease and desist notices made by Upper Branch, dating back to June 2010, which RDFRS has repeatedly defied (while also dishonestly claiming to have received no notice from Upper Branch about the issue).

These particular important points are from the First Amended Complaint of said current lawsuit, paragraphs 22-24, pages 7-8.

22. All products sold in the Upper Branch Store publicized the issues and cause(s) supported and advanced by Dawkins and RDF but Dawkins made clear that, in Dawkins’ own words, the Upper Branch Store was “not directly concerned with RDF[]’[s] activities.”

23. At all times hereunder, Plaintiff was an independent business (independent from RDF, et al.), and Mr. Timonen autonomously ran and operated the Upper Branch Store from a location within Los Angeles, California.

24. Timonen proposed to Dawkins that Timonen could donate certain profits of the Upper Branch Store operation to RDF. In response, on or about July 25, 2007, Dawkins emailed Timonen in Los Angeles: “it’s your baby, your profits, your tax . . . as for whether Upper Branch should make a donation to RDF[], I don’t think you should feel any moral obligations in that regard.”

My emphasis.

And in the Second Amended Complaint, paragraph 21, page 6 - it is specifically noted that Robin Elisabeth Cornwell was copied into the email quoted above, sent by Dawkins on July 25, 2007. So she also received that clear message from Dawkins.

When presented with these emails during the original lawsuit against Timonen et al - RDFRS simply claimed that the words were being "taken out of context" - but would not elaborate on the 'proper' context.



The above is from the Declaration of Charles Coate, paragraph 9 - with my added emphasis.

These facts are not directly related to Upper Branch's ownership of intellectual property - but they are important in explaining the context of Timonen's current litigation against RDFRS - and how egregiously, and perhaps knowingly, unsound the previous charges made against him by RDFRS were. I don't think you have to like Timonen as an individual, or to endorse how the online Store or RD.net was run, in order to appreciate that.

With that aside - Timonen has certificates of copyright for at least fifteen works he completed through Upper Branch, while working with RDFRS. For 8 of which documented, he only has copyright of additional footage, music and artwork for the video productions - and menu selections and artwork for the hardcopy DVDs as sold from the Store.

For the remaining 7 - Upper Branch owns or owned copyright outright, for the entire video productions.

In June 2010, Timonen assigned copyright to RDFRS for two videos produced entirely by Upper Branch, which he now argues should be invalidated, since he argues that the copyright reassignment was completed as part of an implied contractual agreement with RDFRS, for RDFRS to compensate him for the transfer of store assets, and intellectual property - which RDFRS wilfully failed to honour.

The certificates of his copyright registration, and copyright reassignment, are attached to the First Amended Complaint as exhibits, available on pages 48-65.

It goes without saying that, if only two works were ever signed away to RDFRS - Upper Branch unequivocally retains valid copyright for thirteen works, including the entire production of five full-length videos - and including particularly "The Four Horsemen" video, whose copyright was officially registered in May 2008, along with the two works that were reassigned to RDFRS. (The rest were all officially registered in October 2010.)

Robin Elisabeth Cornwell understood the gravity of these issues perfectly well, and she clearly knew and understood that Upper Branch held intellectual property rights when she said in meeting minutes in March 2010 (documented in the Second Amended Complaint, page 12):





And Josh Timonen had explicitly notified Cornwell in early June 2010, that Upper Branch retained copyright for a number of productions - and she had acknowledged this communication and asked for clarification. (See Second Amended Complaint, page 19)





Despite all of the above - and despite no subsequent transfer of copyright ever having taken place - RDFRS began to exploit Upper Branch's copyrighted work in late June 2010 (around the time they informed Timonen that they intended to sue him), actively defied a number of cease and desist notices - and simply baldly insisted that they own copyright for the works in question (including particularly "The Four Horsemen"). (See Second Amended Complaint, pages 27-30)











RDFRS then went from insisting that they own the copyright, to conceding that Upper Branch owns the copyright - but insisting that RDFRS had rights to use the material as part of a non-exclusive license agreement. RDFRS then continued to advertise these copyrighted works for sale till as recently as August 2012. And indeed, the disappearance of the DVDs from the next available archived screen capture in October 2012 probably had more to do with RDFRS's supplier refusing to supply them, than any possible scruples or sanity prevailing within RDFRS.

We know well enough that when Upper Branch eventually had RDFRS's YouTube channel taken down - after well over a year's worth of Upper Branch having established their copyright to the works in question - the response from RDFRS wasn't to reflect soberly on these compelling legal issues - but to turn around and hail the advent of their brand-spanking new YouTube channel, and then re-upload numerous works that they knew infringed Upper Branch's exclusive rights...