Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jan -> Autopsy Camerman Photos

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 26 Jan 97 01:36:13 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:50:11 -0500
Subject: Autopsy Camerman Photos

> From: BGBOPPER@aol.com
> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 12:44:01 -0500 (EST)
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Autopsy Cameraman photos

> I find the copyright of the Santilli autopsy film raises some
> interesting questions.

There's no question Bob Shell is right that the film/interview of "Jack" is
copyright of whomever shot the film or sold it (and/or the rights) to Santilli.
This is so whatever you think of Santilli going into bully mode over publication
of the odd clip (Warner Bros wouldn't!).

However, Santilli has no copyright whatever in the alien autopsy film IF it is
genuine - being US Govt property and thereby automatically in the public domain.
If the US Govt wanted to keep it secret, they'd have to use some other argument
than copyright to suppress it now.

There again, if it is fake, I wager Santilli will never sue for breach of
copyright. I gather he claims it on the *video* because of alleged enhancements
made in the film/tape transfer. Personally I think this is stretching the legal
envelope, but to show a breach of copyright he would have to produce the
original film for comparison with the video, to demonstrate the "enhancements".
Under disclosure rules, defense would also be entitled to a chunk of the film to
prove their obvious line that it is genuine old footage of genuine old autopsy
and not copyright.

Either way Santilli is stuck if he wants to keep making money out of the autopsy
footage.

My $100 to your $1 that Santilli doesn't release any original autopsy film
stock, ever. My whack payable when he does, but not payable if any of the
hoaxers 'fess up first.

British and US copyright laws were harmonized under the revision of the old
Berne Convention that came into force in around 1983, by the way.

best wishes from deep cover
P. Mendoza Bootlegged-Scripts