Kentucky Bigfoot Video Lawsuit
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on April 19th, 2007
You may have noticed that the Kentucky Bigfoot video, photo stills, posts and comments concerning them are no longer posted at Cryptomundo. More about that very soon.
The following article was at posted OnPoint Legal News, a legal news reporting website, by Matthew Heller on February 19th, 2007. It has been reposted on other blogs, message forums and websites as well.
There has been much speculation at these other venues, as I have not spoken publicly about the case, up until now.
Bigfoot Expert Claims “Fair Use” for Video Posting
In an unusual preemptive suit, a Texas man claims the “fair use” exception to copyright liability applies to his Internet publication of a videotape that supposedly shows a Bigfoot snacking on pancakes.
Craig Woolheater, co-founder of the Texas Bigfoot Research Center, filed the suit last week, alleging that another Bigfoot researcher, Matt Moneymaker, has accused him of infringing the copyright to the video and threatened him with financial ruin for posting the tape on the Cryptomundo.com Web site “as part of a discussion on video evidence of Bigfoot.”
Moneymaker shot the murky nighttime footage in July 2005 while investigating the supposed sighting of one of the mythical, ape-like creatures in Kentucky. What he has described as a “real deal” Bigfoot helps itself to syrup-smothered pancakes left as bait in the backyard of a home.
The video originally appeared on a Web site operated by Moneymaker’s Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO). “Plaintiff’s publication of the Video is protected … as a fair use of copyrighted works for educational, research, and newsworthy purposes,” the complaint for declaratory relief states.
The “purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes” is part of the statutory test for fair use. The video posted by Woolheater on Cryptomundo is accessible free of charge.
Another element of the fair use test — the “nature of the copyrighted work” — also appears to favor Woolheater. The video, shot with a motion-sensing camera from a fixed location, is a “factual work,” which qualifies for less protection than an “artistic representation” of ideas, emotions, or feelings.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a TV station’s unlicensed broadcast of news video was not a fair use, in part because of its damaging effect on “the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV, 108 F.3d 1119 (1997)
But according to Woolheater’s suit, Moneymaker may have himself facilitated the unlicensed use of his work. After the BFRO site experienced download failure due to high demand for the video, the suit says, he “advised members of the BFRO community to ‘feel free to send it to others in the group’” — and one of those members allegedly gave a copy to Woolheater in September 2005.
In another fair use case, the 1st Circuit found the potential market for a model’s portfolio photos “small or nonexistent.” Núñez v. Caribbean International News, 235 F.3d 18 (2000)
The same could be true of the market for the Moneymaker tape, particularly if, as several Cryptomundo readers conclude, the Bigfoot sighting is nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by someone dressed up in an animal costume.
2/19/07On Point legal News
That’s right, you can download the actual complaints from the lawsuits. They are public record and they are hosted at the OnPoint News website, not here at Cryptomundo.
UPDATE … A Canadian developer and Bigfoot investigator has sued Woolheater and Cryptomundo for injunctive relief and damages in Texas, claiming they pirated the video. Adrian Erickson paid Moneymaker $20,000 for the rights, the complaint says.On Point legal News
Well, I can tell you this. While I can’t post the settlement agreement with Erickson, I can tell you that no money was exchanged. I took down the still photos and the link to the video, because Erickson said he bought the video from Moneymaker for $20,000, and he didn’t want it shown to others. I respect his right to keep it to himself and avoid embarrassment.
I will discuss the details of the lawsuits very soon here on Cryptomundo.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Moneymaker by any means necessary eh?! What a muppet!
Okay. One thing that doesn’t sit right with me is that this footage was sold by MM to Adrian Erickson for 20K. Can we now conclude that any genuine evidence acquired by the BFRO is first subject to commercial sale by Moneymaker? I have profound reservations concerning this footage, but part of me still likes to believe if an organization like BFRO turns up significant evidence that they would share it openly with the BF community. The original argument I heard from the BFRO concerning this footage was that it was “prematurely” released and they were hoping to present it in “context” with other evidence. The truth appears to be that MM was motivated by simple greed and sold the exclusive rights to the footage for 20k rather than make it available for public disclosure, debate and analysis or scientific scrutiny. It wasn’t about “context” it was about greed. Really what kind of irony is this with a name like Moneymaker? How sad. The BFRO website and research is built upon people freely and openly sharing evidence and contributing encounters with a sense that by sharing these encounters they are contributing to a greater public understanding of the BF phenomenon. Shouldn’t the thousands of contributers who freely shared their stories with the BFRO database expect the same in return? Am I missing something here? He sold the footage for 20k? All I can say is “wow!” for so many reasons.
Sounds like a fair settlement to remove the video and stills from this site. One reason could be that the PERSON in the video who is ALLEGED to be a Blobfoot did not give his/her permission for the picture to be displayed. Glad that Cryptomundo respects a person’s privacy.
If I was out for a little private snack of pancakes I wouldn’t want my pix all over the web! I mean how embarrassing, me with my green jacket on and my towel-wrapped head splashed all over the world. It’s enough to make one give up late night pancake suppers.
BTW are you violating any settlement terms by discussing the case on this forum?
joppa,
The settlement agreement was NOT confidential. While the other side pushed for this, we did not agree to it. We did agree to not disclose any of the confidential information regarding the video, such as the location it was filmed or the people involved, other than Moneymaker and Erickson. We agreed not to post THE settlement agreement online. I can discuss it and even paraphrase, but not quote it.
As far as the confidential information regarding the location and individuals involved, that information is all public record. You just have to know where to look. 🙂
Maybe they are concerned that “the real deal” might come under too much scrutiny.
Obviously they are going to get favorable feedback from their own members at the BFRO but after reading real and unbiased opinions here they could have gotten spooked.
It all sounds frivolous to me and I can’t see where Craig has done anything wrong.
Sounds like a ploy to control and perpetuate another hoax.
I saw it, it looked fake to me. Sue me!!!!!!
Thanks Craig, just professional curiosity. The pleadings I have read are interesting and have made for amusing water cooler talk in our local legal circles.
The location of the pancake fiasco is pretty much an open secret on the web. Biscardi sure spent some time trying to chase it down.
I have wondered if the video actually depicts some homeless or mentally ill person who is being made sport of. I hope not, but the squabble it has caused leads me to believe that someone is worried about being exposed for fraud.
I think we can all understand, and appreciate, the reasons for not wanting the locations and individuals involved revealed. I mean, no one wants to have legitimate research ruined because one joker comes in one night and hoaxes, throwing the whole investigation into question and/or contaminating legitimate evidence. After all, if we REALLY want to be scientific (and we do) we need to maintain some controls.
But part of that being scientific is opening things up to peer review. Sharing it. Chewing on it. THEN publishing/presenting it. Sometimes this can take years. And, then, after it has withstood those years of probing by a number of individuals. Then you get to stand up and say “I did it”. “I was one of them.” And guess what? You’ll get your book deals then. You’ll get your spots on Leno and Letterman. You’ll get way more than a bunch of geeks talking about you on the internet.
And you’ll get your filthy lucre.
This, for all its warts, and its compatriot sites out there in the ether, are the closest thing to peer review journals this field has at the moment. All you have to do, if you have the legitimate, definitive proof, is be patient, and everything else that comes from being involved in such a momentous discovery will come to you.
The rest of the folks will be satisfied that they weren’t seeing things. That they didn’t dream it. Or satisfied with their small role in shedding light into the depths of our own ignorance. With knowing, and protecting, another of God’s creatures. The other seekers, the other hunters, they’ll be relegated to footnotes. You’ll get your 15 minutes and be as forgotten as the man who discovered the mountain gorilla to everyone but the cryptozoology geeks and forteana aficionados who got the whole ball rolling. Such is the way of things, and most folks wouldn’t fight that.
That is, unless you’re just out to drag things out. To profit off the mystery. Then you might be more defensive. Maybe.
Be careful what you wish for, Mike Smith, you never know how far someone’s willing to take things…
What happened to the BFRO?
I liked it better when it was a non profit research organization.
The BFRO seems to have spawned into a travel and tourism company only interested in promoting camping trips for paying customers.
The bottom line for the organization seems to have changed from proving the existence of Bigfoot to the financial profit of a certain individual.
To make the observation that the footage shown on this site was the “real deal” is not only laughable but should be criminal. It seems that the person making that remark is not looking for the real deal, he is looking for the “right deal.”
Let’s just not mention him anymore.
Damn shame.
They got a pretty good website too, and apparently some good field people.
Sucks.
As a writer and partner in a publishing company, I see the real issue here as the confusion about what constitutes fair use and what copyright protections cover. Most people do not understand these issues, and rather simple matters end up in court. Everyone should keep in mind that whatever you write–from an email to a full-fledged book–is copyrighted from the moment you write or type it. The same goes for videos and other media. Fair use remains a gray area which the courts must constantly redefine and police.
I’ve seen people post articles from other people’s blogs in their entirety on their own sites, without saying where they got it or whether they had permission to use it. Simply saying Joe Blow wrote this article is not enough–even providing a link to Joe Blow’s website may not be enough.
I’m not commenting on this case in particular, but on the issue as a whole. We would all do well to err on the side of caution when it comes to other people’s intellectual property.
Sincerely,
Lisa A. Shiel
Slipdown Mountain Publications LLC
&
Michigan Upper Peninsula Bigfoot Organization