My comment to Autism Speaks

Post Reply New Topic

I am sorry but autism speaks is made up of its members, and there are a lot of cultic ideas that have come from that place. The lack of empathy or humanity they show when they send a cease and desist to a parody site is one example.
The examples from the videos show a religious disregard for human life. The general attitude is to give autistic parents a voice, not children. All that is trumpeted is the power, the size, the high wages.
Pseudoscience on autism speaks sites is the norm.

I am not disputing free speech. What is it with your appeals to emotion and misrepresentations of what I say? I said they were making pseudoscientific ideas.

Autism Speaks isn't a club where someone can become a member. They have support sites where the general public as visitors to that site can share information with each other, and they have ways where the general public can donate money and support the organization's mission. The people that financially support autism speaks do not represent the organization in any official manner, anymore that the people that financially support any other charitable organization.

http://www.autismspeaks.org/about-us/terms-service



The individuals that comprise the boards, committees, and who are employed by the organization are the individuals that actually comprise the organization. The general public that supports the organization are not actual members of the organization.

last i knew i am a member of autism speaks,under the user name benjamin

As one part of Autism Speaks services to the general public, they provide a discussion board both on Facebook and Autism Speaks website that individuals can register to use in support of each other with their issues.

These are the interactive services that autism speaks makes available to visitors from the public that are described in the terms of agreement quoted from the site above. Yes you are a member of a service they provide but that does not make an individual an actual member of the autism speaks organization.

This is part of the argument that is made so often, that there are not enough autistic individuals that are an actual part of the organization. Any autistic person can join the discussion forum, but the organization selects those individuals that actually represent the organization.

Some of those people I was talking about actually work for autism speaks and so were some of the activities.

Furthermore it would be false to say that much of the clientele that made themselves aware of eachother would not be involved.

your right,there arent enough or any members with autism of autism speaks administration

Lack of empathy has nothing to do with the legal requirement to protect a trademark, if you don't understand the laws in the US, there are websites that explain it clearly. And again, it's unfortuante that a 14 year old was involved, but the organization made it clear that they did not know the individual was a 14 year old when the letter was sent, and there is no reasonable way that they would have been able to obtain that information, because there was no requirement or justification for the website administrators to release that information.

The Autism Speaks organization has been continuously slandered on some websites, and for the most part this has been completely ignored by Autism Speaks. The difference, is, there was no legal requirement to protect a trademark.

There was a parody that was cut and pasted on this website, and removed by moderators, but per the owner of this website's own clarification, a member of this website, that happened to be part of the Autism Speaks organization, found it personally offensive because NAZI's were involved in the parody and the real name of the individual was used.

Per the rules of this site personal attacks are not allowed on the site; doesn't matter if it's a parody are not, the individuals that are members of this private site, per the rules have a right not to be personally attacked, or belittled, whether it is direct or indirect attack.

If the organization was out to censor people for slandering them, they would have plenty of opportunity, but it's not impacting any legal requirements, so they just ignore it, because they understand it has little to no impact on their mission, if anything it draws attention to the fact that autism speaks exists.

The complaints about autism speaks all could be resolved with contructive criticism, with no need for anyone to bash the organization. However, that was the route some chose to take.

Religion has nothing to do with those videos. The videos touched some people's hearts, and offended others, so Autism Speaks removed them from their website. They were under no obligation to do that, but they did it in considering the people's feelings that the videos offended.

The lawyers of autism speaks were involved in fulfilling their duties in sending the cease and desist letter, and a producer was hired to make the videos; this has nothing to do with the people that visit the website to get information and support each other.

The people that visit the Autism Speaks website have nothing to do with the lawyers at Autism Speaks, and they have no control or influence over the producers that produced those couple of videos that upset some people.

Autism Speaks doesn't have clientale, they provide educational awareness to the general public to the visitors that come to the website. Whatever it is that the visitors that visit their website, talk about, is their own personal business, not something that the organization itself is responsible for. If people decide they want to support the organization financially they are encouraged to, but it doesn't entitle them to any benefits, that individuals that don't support the organization have.

All that said, Autism Speaks has apologized for offenses taken, and stated it wasn't their intention to offend anyone, and is learning from mistakes as a young organization

In the USA parody is allowed to use what would otherwise be questionable under fair use. So to threaten prosecution to the teenager even then for using trademarks isn't right. Under corpyright law NTs Speak could be seen as a copyright violation if it wasn't used in parody.

No, it seems more like ina case when there was a direct parody, like NTs Speak, they brought out a cease and desist. And we don't even know how and why copyrights were broken. All we have is your word. Saying there is evidence isn't evidence.

Why are you talking about an unrelated incident? It sounds like you are just adding this in to make some weird comparison between the two. Don't confuse things. :/

In a perfect world that could happen with a lot of companies but the fact is that the general mood is to generally put up a front, not alleviate concerns, astroturf and otherwise. In a perfect world a 14 year old wouldn't be threatened with a cease and desist for using copyrights, even though their right to parody is protected under fair use.

Now that's being fatuous. I didn't say autism speaks is a religion. I said the people were religiously doing what they did.

are autism speaks organization and autism speaks different.im confused

In the USA parody is allowed to use what would otherwise be questionable under fair use. So to threaten prosecution to the teenager even then for using trademarks isn't right. Under corpyright law NTs Speak could be seen as a copyright violation if it wasn't used in parody.

No, it seems more like ina case when there was a direct parody, like NTs Speak, they brought out a cease and desist. And we don't even know how and why copyrights were broken. All we have is your word. Saying there is evidence isn't evidence.

Why are you talking about an unrelated incident? It sounds like you are just adding this in to make some weird comparison between the two. Don't confuse things. :/

In a perfect world that could happen with a lot of companies but the fact is that the general mood is to generally put up a front, not alleviate concerns, astroturf and otherwise. In a perfect world a 14 year old wouldn't be threatened with a cease and desist for using copyrights, even though their right to parody is protected under fair use.

Now that's being fatuous. I didn't say autism speaks is a religion. I said the people were religiously doing what they did.[/quote]

Apparently you don't understand the laws in the US, and I have no influence of your education therein. I have no ideas what the laws are in the UK, but understand them in the US. This issue has already been discussed adnauseum, for those that don't understand the law they are never going to be able to figure out why Autism Speaks lawyers did what they did.

Again for the third or fourth time explained by more than one person. In the US it is a legal requirement to defend unauthorized use of trademarks, that is a completely different issue than fair use of a parody. Look up the US code on it, if you dont' believe it.

The other example was in reference to a parody issue on this website. Just to show that parodies can be removed for other reasons than the fact that they are intended as parodies. In that case it was because it used an individuals name that was a member here, and they found it personally offensive, which is against the rules of this private site.

I could say exactly the same thing. I mean this reponse is see through. You don't actually explain how the US laws favour your interpretation at all. You just say that it does. You instantly assume that autism speaks was in the right and it has coloured your reactions.
By showing that parody protects people by allowing them to use copyrights I have actually explained how the cease and desist was unlawful.

Can you explain a loophole? The fact is that morally speaking this shouldn't have happened anyway. But since I have had to fight on legal grounds the fact is that it is even legally questionable. You say there is evidence all the time of you being right, of the law being this way or that way, but you never demonstrate how or why.

I can't believe that you're ignoring the fact again that fair use allows the use of what would otherwise be trademarks for parody.

According to US law:
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Source:http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

So obviously parody is allowed to make use of what is otherwise copyrighted work for criticism etc. A cease and desist for copyright would be unlawful with regards to parody. Even morally it is unjustifiable.

And I mean the quote is see through again. it's clear that you blindly believed that US law was on autism speak's side because you never give any explanation. Reporting proof isn't proof.

I mean seriously, you even try and say I am not right by saying because I am foreign I don't know US law.

Sorry, the comment about you not being from the US; that doesn't stop a person from looking up the laws and trying to understand them, applicable to the situation, I try not to lose my patience, but after 3 people explained it in the forum including Inventor and Cornflake I was hoping you would take our word for it without giving a long detailed legal explanation.

I give you credit for providing actual legal documentation to support your opinion; fair use is the defense that would likely be used, but just because the teenager said it was a parody doesn't mean it met the legal requirements and guidelines for fair use and parody.

Fair Use and Parody would likely be used as a defense, if the case had gone to court, but there is no proof that the information on the website met the guidelines required for fair use because the individual that made the website removed it and it is not available anywhere for anyone to make a determination one way or another at this point in time, outside of the legal determination that the lawyers from Autism Speaks made when they pursued the issue.

If the individual who designed the website refused the cease and desist letter a court of law would have determined fair use.

It is my understanding that it was the contention of the lawyers from Autism Speaks that the usage of their trademarks did not meet fair use and my understanding that this potentially violated part A of the law below. It doesn't matter whether or not the teenager said it was just a parody, it's a matter of whether or not it actually would have met fair use guidelines, which the lawyers from autism speaks determined that it didn't, and a court of law would have had the final say so on, had it gone to court.

There is another site that was put up by another organization to parody the website, which meets fair use, that is perfectly acceptable, that Autism Speaks hasn't sought action against. That however, is not the site, that the teenager put up on the web.

It was the responsibility of the lawyers that work for autism to protect the organization from trademark infringement, and they exercised their duties as part of that responsibility. Again they had no reasonable way of knowing that the individual behind the website was a teenager, any more than any other organization that might have pursued legal action against a person responsible for a website. They were within their legal rights to send a cease and desist letter. No one has proven or can prove that the site met legal requirements for parody or fair use, because a copy of the information that was used on the site does not exist.


Title 15, Chapter 22



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001125----000-.html

The problem is is that you ignore terms of fair use as laid out in american law in order t make a legal argument about the whole thing. Also I am not likely to be swayed by public opinion or the majority if I know that I am right, because I am not a spineless coward. WOuld you really dare say such a thing when you think how unpopular autism speaks is?



oh don't be so childish aghogday. You even said yourself that Autism Speak knew that the site was a parody site. THe fact is that it was a parody site. Don't try any see-through attempts at fogging up the issue. This is not only pure speculation, but it ignores what autism speaks knew as you told us. Unless of course you were lying.

I am sorry but earlier you were saying that it was breaching copyright laws. Now faced with the truth you try to weasal a round everything.

SO now you are openly contradicting what was said above.

I never said anything about copyright laws. Trademark are not copyrighted, they are registered. It is my understanding that it is Autism Speaks Lawyers contention is that there was trademark infringement not copyright infringement. The laws I presented are regarding trademarks not copyrights, they are two separate things.

The teenager contends that it was presented as parody and met fair use standards, but my understanding is that it is autism speaks lawyers contention that the trademarks of autism speaks were infringed upon, and the information was not presented in a way that met the legal guidelines of fair use. It's not just a matter of whether or not the young girl intended it as parody, which she say she did, it's a matter if the information was presented in a way that met fair use guidelines.

Court cases for trademark infringement and a determination of whether or not fair use guidlines were met, happen all the time, because their is subjective room for judgment in how one may interpret the guidelines in case. The case didn't go to court, because the cease and desist letter notifying the individual that trademark infringement had occured, was complied with. That is the end of the legal facts as they exist. Everything else at this point is speculation about a website that no longer exists.

Registered like copyrights. Don't be pedantic. Trademarks can still be used in parodies under fair use in th United States.

And there was no reason to say that it didn't.

With a strong leaning towards it actually being allowed to and the whole debacle a defensive affair.

The difference between trademarks and copyrights is not a pedantic one, they are governed by different laws in the US Code. A trademark is registered and information is copyrighted, two processes that require completely different actions.

It is my understanding that the autism speaks lawyers determined the site did not comply with fair use guidelines in using autism speaks trademarks; that is the only reason why it was suggested that the site didn't meet fair use guidelines; and this is what the lawyers get the big bucks for, to interpret the law, and pursue issues that are important enough to pursue. That was their judgement based on their expertise.

There is no strong leaning towards anything, other than opinion at this point; there is no site to make any judgement on at this point in time.

The lawyers made their judgement based on their own expert opinions, having access to the site to analyze it.

What would have been determined in a court of law will never be known because the cease and desist letter determined the outcome of the situation, however the lawyers were doing the same job that any business lawyers that protects trademarks do.

If the lawyers don't do their jobs properly they don't keep them, so they must take whatever appropriate action is necessary considering potential trademark infringements, that they see necessary to pursue.