Has Michael Moore fallen off the edge?

[Anonymous_Coward]

@Liberal

I showed you the picture with the claim of ownership. If you now claim the ownership is fraudulent, then you’ve made a claim of your own, and YOU should put up or shut up.

Because if it’s on the internet, it’s gotta be true.

[Alma]

I don’t have a dog in the fight, but when that picture originally made the rounds last Wednesday, there was no credit on it. No cow, no satire. You see this is v.4. Perhaps Mr. Moore has an earlier version of it. I passed the picture around by email to my friends in its original version with no writing in the margin. Now that I see that it has a byline, I don’t think I’ll be sending out corrections. I don’t know if Michael Moore should also have this responsibility.

[Liberal]

@Anonymous Coward

Because if it’s on the internet, it’s gotta be true.

Oh, a drive-by cliche from an anonymous coward. If you have ever cited an Internet site in an argument on the SDMB, then you’re a hypocritical fuck. Meanwhile, what can you offer to counter Webb’s claim of authorship? Nothing? I thought so. Sit down and shut up.

[Fear_Itself]

@Liberal

Oh, a drive-by cliche from an anonymous coward. If you have ever cited an Internet site in an argument on the SDMB, then you’re a hypocritical fuck. Meanwhile, what can you offer to counter Webb’s claim of authorship? Nothing? I thought so. Sit down and shut up.

How about this? Graphic by Dave Ruderman

Now you shut up, you arrogant putz.

[caphis]

@Fear Itself

How about this? Graphic by Dave Ruderman

Now you shut up, you arrogant putz.

Owned.

[Homebrew]

@yosemite

That proves absolutely nothing, either way.

It’s easy to add or delete a signature such as that. It can be done in a few minutes. We won’t know the chonology of that graphic, and we might never know, unless the original artist comes forward and provides the source file (perhaps a higher-res Photoshop with intact layers?).

I don’t know whether Moore swiped the graphic without permission. Part of me thinks it’s unlikely that he’d be so foolish as to do that, so perhaps he got permission. But, it’s not the first time that a graphic circulates and people assume it’s “public domain” when it’s really not, so who knows?

This is a hijack that is more interesting than the OP. Current copyright laws are quite challenged by the internet, especially when it concerns works that are circulated entirely electronically. For most works created after 1978, they are copyrighted as soon as they are made in a “tangible medium”. Therein lies the problem. Is the internet a tangible medium? Common sense tells us that copyright laws should apply to works created for the internet; but enforcing that copyright is extremely difficult.

If the original artist was concerned about his copyright, then there are steps to take that make removal of the copyright notice more difficult. It is trivally easy to remove a notice such as the one G. Webb added. However, there are other means of embedding the copyright that are not so simple to remove and in such a case as this would be more than adequate.

It is true that despite wide circulation of the image it is not technically public domain. I contend, however, that the apparent lack of effort by the artist to protect the work means there is no intention of enforcing copyright and a license to use is implied.

[Liberal]

@Fear Itself

How about this? Graphic by Dave Ruderman

Now you shut up, you arrogant putz.

The Buzzflash blurb you reference credits NZZ Online, and not Dave Ruderman, the name in the table caption, which could be simply the person who provided it. Searching NZZ Online, there is nothing returned either for “Ruderman” or “Jesusland”. Perhaps the Buzzflash contributor confused NZZ with Netzwelt, where the graphic appeared in Spiegel Online. It says the image is “im Web kursierendes Bild, Ursprung unbekannt”, or circulating the Web, origin unknown. As early as November 3, people were crediting the image to Matthew Yglesias, but he denies creating it. You still have provided nothing to contradict Mr. Webb’s claim.

[Fear_Itself]

@Liberal

The Buzzflash blurb you reference credits NZZ Online, and not Dave Ruderman, the name in the table caption, which could be simply the person who provided it.

No, the person providing it is “Dorothy”, and for everyone but you Lib, “Graphic by Dave Ruderman” is a claim to ownership.

You still have provided nothing to contradict Mr. Webb’s claim.

Ruderman’s claim is at least as solid as Webb’s, in fact moreso. Webb doesn’t even claim ownership, just warns people not to link to it, which is obvious he just doesn’t want other sites to hotlink to his version and steal his bandwidth.

[Frank]

@Liberal

I showed you the picture with the claim of ownership. If you now claim the ownership is fraudulent, then you’ve made a claim of your own, and YOU should put up or shut up.

It’s apparent, especially with the contribution from Fear Itself, that you began to run your mouth before you had any clue what you were talking about. Regardless of who created the graphic, you have no proof of who it was. You also have no proof that Moore is ‘stealing’ the graphic. For someone who praises logic and proof so much when it suits your purposes, you seem to have no problem throwing logic and proof out the window when it suits your purposes. There’s a word for people like that: hypocrite.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Lib, not admit when he’s wrong? Maybe he’ll come in with some nasty insults instead–or else maybe he’ll lapse into Latin, his favorite language for playing defensively.

Daniel

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Liberal

That’s what you say. What he said was that some of the soldiers didn’t know that they were speaking to a film crew that was working with him.

Incorrect. You are confusing two different pieces of footages. The film outside Abu Ghraib was not taken by any film crew associated with Moore and was sent to him unsolicited.

The soldiers who claim they were “duped” were the wounded soldiers interviewed in a hospital, some of who said unfavorable things about Bush.

I didn’t say he shot the film. What he did was infiltrate by some method that he will not reveal, and then misrepresent himself in order to manipulate the soldiers to say something he could use. It’s not that he investigated objectively and came to conclusions; it’s that he took his conclusions to the task, and formulated what he could use to support his conclusion. He did the very thing you might condemn someone else for doing.

This is just false, Lib. The AG footage was given to him by someone he didn’t know. He didn’t ask for it or know about it when it was taken.

If that’s the case, then why did he use it?

Because it was interesting. The footage in the context of the film was not used to show how evil US troops were but how frustrations and tensions were leading to “bad behavior” and friction between US troops and those who 6hey were supposed to be “liberating.” It was not meant to be an expose, but part of a broader picture of life on the ground, with some good things and some bad.

And why, when asked, did he not simply say what you said,

Moore himself never claimed the footage showed criminal behavior, only the media did.

And so? All that remark does is condemn him all the more. I mean, you’re saying that he weighed the ethics of whether to report what he saw, and in the end decided to cover his own ass.

There was no ethicla dilemma. He was right. Not only would he have been accused of grandstanding, those accusations would have been correct. If he had made a big deal out of footage that shows no real abuse except for a single racial slur and joke about an erection then he would have been grandstanding. There was nothing to “cover up.” There was nothing to report. The footage does not show any criminal behavior. You really ought to watch it sometime. You seem to have a greatly exaggerated impression of what the footage shows. I know the media claimed it showed a “sexual assault.” It does not and Moore never claimed that it did.

I didn’t say anything about permission. It’s about deceit. It would be like me being here pretending to be an ordinary poster when I was actually an agent of the CIA gathering information about what is being posted here.

What “deceit?” Moore had nothing to do with filming outside AG and didn’t even know about it until someone sent him the footage. The footage is not used to demonize soldiers and on balance, the film gives a positive view of the soldiers.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

Let’s see here.

Michael Moore
History of ripping people off. CHECK
History of omitting attribution to other people’s work. CHECK
History of using deceptive tactics (including altered images) to further his agenda. CHECK

No known personal history of web/graphic design.
G Webb
History of web/graphic design. CHECK
History of designing cel-shaded cow that appears in link-proof “Jesus Map”. CHECK

No known history of ripping people off, omitting attribution or using deceptive tactics to further his or her agenda.
It ain’t rocket science, folks.

[aldiboronti]

Headline from Michael Moore’s website :

Fantastic news out of Saudi Arabia.

The headline links to this story:

Saudi religious scholars support holy war against U.S. forces in Iraq

If that isn’t going over the edge I don’t know what is.

[CarnalK]

aldiboronti if you miss such obvious irony maybe you should stick to “My Pet Goat”.

[Liberal]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Lib, not admit when he’s wrong?

I’ve admitted my mistakes on numerous occasions, including these:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5259116&postcount=81

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5225139&postcount=7

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5107422&postcount=73

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5085975&postcount=102

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4823457&postcount=11

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3761126&postcount=14

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2820481&postcount=111

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2683378&postcount=80

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2528071&postcount=130

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5429594&postcount=22

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5416320&postcount=6

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5312081&postcount=56

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5265137&postcount=22

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5188524&postcount=92

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5176357&postcount=23

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5105889&postcount=54

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5085811&postcount=50

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4921102&postcount=81

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4909896&postcount=39

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4784180&postcount=56

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4692427&postcount=23

Perhaps you yourself will admit your error in this instance, or am I mistaken again?

[Liberal]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Incorrect. You are confusing two different pieces of footages. The film outside Abu Ghraib was not taken by any film crew associated with Moore and was sent to him unsolicited.

The soldiers who claim they were “duped” were the wounded soldiers interviewed in a hospital, some of who said unfavorable things about Bush.

I know they are separate. That’s why I never linked them. For some reason, you’ve assumed I thought they were the same. I know that Moore himself said the film was made on December 12 by a freelance journalist.

This is just false, Lib. The AG footage was given to him by someone he didn’t know. He didn’t ask for it or know about it when it was taken.

Again, I didn’t say he filmed that footage himself. How you got off on that tangent is unclear.

Because it was interesting. The footage in the context of the film was not used to show how evil US troops were but how frustrations and tensions were leading to “bad behavior” and friction between US troops and those who 6hey were supposed to be “liberating.” It was not meant to be an expose, but part of a broader picture of life on the ground, with some good things and some bad.

I think evil deed and bad behavior is a distinction without a difference. Moore himself did not say that it was insufficiently evil to report, but that he didn’t trust the sort of media to whom he was speaking at the time.

Moore himself never claimed the footage showed criminal behavior, only the media did.

Who said anything about criminal?

There was no ethicla dilemma. He was right. Not only would he have been accused of grandstanding, those accusations would have been correct. If he had made a big deal out of footage that shows no real abuse except for a single racial slur and joke about an erection then he would have been grandstanding. There was nothing to “cover up.” There was nothing to report. The footage does not show any criminal behavior. You really ought to watch it sometime. You seem to have a greatly exaggerated impression of what the footage shows. I know the media claimed it showed a “sexual assault.” It does not and Moore never claimed that it did.

Moore himself said that it was a “really tough decision”. He said further, “we’re putting the film together and we’re trying to decide what should we do here?”. If there were no dilemma in his mind, why would he agonize over it? Why would it interrupt production for a decision to be made?

What “deceit?” Moore had nothing to do with filming outside AG and didn’t even know about it until someone sent him the footage. The footage is not used to demonize soldiers and on balance, the film gives a positive view of the soldiers.

I already told you, the deceit is with the other event, the interviews he conducted with soldiers, wherein he admits that he infiltrated by some secret means and that not all of them knew that the producers who talked to them worked for him.

[Liberal]

El Cid, it is a shame that your compelling argument will fall on so many deaf ears.

[aldiboronti]

Ah, Moore’s being ironic . That makes it OK then.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

by Liberal

El Cid, it is a shame that your compelling argument will fall on so many deaf ears.

I’m getting used to it. Thanks anyway.

[CarnalK]

aldiboronti:
Ah, Moore’s being ironic . That makes it OK then.

So can you tell me what makes it NOT ok? Perhaps it is in mildly bad taste but to say it shows Moore is over the edge shows that you are grasping at straws.