How Not To Handle A Parody Video: Threatening Legal Action
from the hello-ms.-streisand dept
A whole bunch of people have sent in variations on this story, which involves scientist Michael Mann, one of the main figures involved in the recent (misleading and totally blown out of proportion) controversy over climate change research, threatening legal action against people who made a satire video, which includes his image. Honestly, it's hard to think of a move more likely to backfire than this. His lawyers should have done everything in their power to talk him out of making such a threat. Think about it:- You have groups who want publicity making fun of him
- These groups also want a legal battle with him where they might be able to gather additional info from him
- They made a clearly legally protected video
Either way, it's hard not to see the video as protected free speech. The use of his likeness is not (as the letter claims) for commercial purposes, but to mock him. It clearly hurts his feelings, but that's not illegal. The claims of defamation are also ridiculous. Even if you believe that Mann's infamous comments were taken out of context, there's a widespread discussion over what happened with the data in question, and arguing that it's defamatory to make such a claim is a stretch.
Yet again, we see a legal cease & desist threat being used not for an actual legal reason, but because someone doesn't like something on the internet... and the result, in true "Streisand Effect" fashion, is to call significantly more attention to the content they hoped would disappear. This video wasn't going to convince people one way or the other in this debate. People who want to believe that climate change data was falsified were going to believe it no matter what. Those who feel otherwise aren't going to have their mind changed by a silly video. Threatening legal action does nothing but draw more attention to the the issue.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: lawsuits, michael mann, parody, video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Environmentally Unsound
I hope he enjoys the ride.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Environmentally Unsound
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the Michael Mann that raped his daughter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the exact sort of BS that fuels people who do not believe in human caused climate change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's not suing because the National Post disagreed with him. He's suing because they improperly skewed his statements, painted him as a conspiracy theorist (including false claims that he believes the oil industry broke into his office), and did everything except outright stating that he was a sham of a researcher who was just paying lip-service for a paycheck.
Arstechnica did a terrible write-up of the lawsuit, spending about 10% of the time actually talking about the case, and the rest on a general rant about climate change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You say tomato, I say tomahto...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
a) Cherry picked data to support his research
b) Blamed the "evil fossil fuel industry" for break-ins at his office
There was also some statement regarding the IPCC, which was also supposedly made up.
Everything else is general ranting about how the media skews its articles, but those two points are certainly libelous if they are indeed false.
Now, it's obvious which side of the whole debate you're on. However, I should hope that you're not using that as a justification for a newspaper making up statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if you really want to get people who do not believe we're causing climate change riled up, sue them for disagreeing with you.
Suing them will do infinitely more harm against the fight to stop climate change than the statements made by his detractors ever did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, and...
Well, that and the fact that the human contribution to "Climate change" is a fraction of a percent compared to, oh, every other geological and celestial (sun) forces that exerts a much more significant effect on our climate.
But what do I know, I'm only human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, and...
People always talk about climate change as if it's a bad thing. But climate change has been occurring well before we showed up on this planet. It's only a problem if we're causing it. If we're not causing it, there's not much we could do about it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
Let's assume that despite all the pollution we're dumping into our atmosphere, we are not causing the current climate change.
If despite all of that dumping we're not having any impact, what makes you think we could affect any climate change even if we wanted to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, and...
Michael Mann's career is finished for all intents and purposes, and he's pissed. Now if only he could figure out where he left that darn data...
One more thing: This is precisely where science is broken, in that any scientist who will not toe the line and agree with the "consensus" is blackballed and ridiculed. The "consensus" scientists will do everything possible to deny access to those who don't agree. Most of them are so afraid of this practice that they don't dare speak the truth or adhere to the scientific method 100%. It's much easier to stay quiet and keep collecting the grant money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, and...
And the funny part is; it's insignificant when compared to the last time it went off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
And the funny part is; it's insignificant when compared to the last time it went off.
All cars in North America? Quite selective there. You are apparently ignorant of the fact that transportation (which includes cars, planes, trains, and boats) only accounts for 14% of the human produced CO2 emissions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
Also, going back a few comments to RDs comment about other greenhouse gases, Methane levels have increased from 770 ppb to 1745 ppb over pre-industrial levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, and...
Wow, that is probably one of the most fallacious comments you could have possibly made. Carbon Dioxide levels have risen from 310ppm to 380ppm over the past 40 years. While increases of this amount have been seen through natural processes, natural processes would take hundreds (if not thousands) of years to create this type of increase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, and...
Great! It (CO2)increased 20% in 4 decades. Of course, you neglect to also state a very big part of this argument, and that is that CO2 is a VERY SMALL part of "Greenhouse gasses" that contribute to climate change. On the order of a few percent compared to, say, water vapor.
* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%
So, Co2, even though it has increased 20% in half a century, is only less than 1/4 to 1/10th of the TOTAL. Is it a problem? Perhaps. Are you ignoring other factors, such as the ability of the ocean and other earth systems to "scrub" the CO2, or other contributing factors such as Solar (#1 cause of ALL climate change, and if you dont believe it, you have no arguments worth making) and things like the aformentioned Iceland Volcano? Yes, yes you are.
CO2 is only one relatively small PART (PART!) of all that affects climate change. That you focus solely on it tells a lot about where you stand and how you view the subject (which is to say, the alarmist "man is killing the planet!" view).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
Methane levels have also been shown to be increasing, though not as dramatically as CO2. This also creates a feedback loop, as thawing permafrost releases additional methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas.
When you say that CO2 is "a very small part of greenhouse gasses" (misspelling of "gases" retained) you completely ignore the fact that this "small part" can still be directly shown to have a significant affect on global average temperatures.
If the Ocean and other systems were capable of "scrubbing" the additional CO2 that humans have been spewing into the atmosphere, then levels of CO2 would remain flat, rather than increasing dramatically.
I would never make the claim that "man is killing the planet". The planet will be around long after humans are gone. But I do support the idea that man has made and is still making quite an impact, and the results of our impact are hard if not impossible to predict.
Your view of the subject clearly shows how you view the subject (which is to say "we are having no effect, we should keep doing everything as we have been doing it and make no changes to attempt to reduce our impact").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
I can state that amount of bullshit dramatically increased over the past 40 years. More dramaticaly than CO2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
As for you assertion that it is a made up problem, just keep sticking your head in the sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
Havent you seen snow in florida ?
Or Irelend under snow ?
Ohhh... I forgot "Climate CHANGE" allows you to spend money on both directions (against warmin and cooling) at the same time. With a double rate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
You should try educating yourself a bit, you might sound less like a complete idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
I was suggesting that serious debate on the subject would quickly end should the requirement exist (being that the only people denying climate science are people who know absolutely nothing about it or are currently in the employ of a coal company).
I can cook a mean fish, but I wouldn't trust myself to serve puffer fish, that would take more than what wikipedia provides me. I am also not a climate scientist, and I'm willing to bet that nobody else here is either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You'd think they'd get the wording right
Seriously people, if you're writing legal documents, learn the difference between cashed and cached. They're different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You'd think they'd get the wording right
Wow. That actually works on so many levels. Someone needs to teach this to the copyright nuts too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Education Ready
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Guthrie Estate Tried This With Jib Jab
So there is another danger here. Not only does all of this spurious litigation dilute the so called protections of copyright (protect the distributors and retailers and the heck with the poor schmuck who wrote it!) the litigants might actually find out that their precious creative work is no longer under copyright at all. You might even say that Jib Jab proved once and for all time that "This song was made for you and me!"
Was a great high wall there
That tried to stop my
A great big sign said
"Private Property"
But on the other side
It didn't say nuthin'
Except, This land is made for you and me!
Woodie Guthrie
They never put this verse in the text books. I wonder why?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]