Ex-Gay Watch

You'd think Falwell would have learned his lesson after the Larry Flynt debacle.

I don't see any logos or anything else that's copyrighted. No slogans nor mottos either. They don't seem to have much of a case there.

I'd love to see the C&D letter, care to post it?

Yes, can we see the letter? Do they give any legal grounds for asking for it to be removed? Once we have a case from the lawyers only then can we discuss whether it's valid.

The Exodus logo appears faintly in the bottom left of the billboard photo.

Liberty Counsel's e-mail contains the usual boilerplate disclaimer calling the contents "confidential" and warning against redistribution.

I'll quote the key language:

Publication of the image on your web site also infringes on the intellectual property rights of Exodus. Mr. Watt of justinsomnia.org cites the “Wikipedia” free dictionary to support his mistaken belief that the stolen image is exempt from federal intellectual property laws as a “parody” due to “fair use.”

Unfortunately, the intricacies of federal law cannot adequately be covered on “Wikipedia” due to the variety of facts addressed by courts in numerous cases. Your publication of the image is indeed a violation of copyright law and is not covered by “fair use.” Nearly the entire image file from the Exodus web site was is used on your web site with only two changes. The word changed “Gay” to “Straight?” and “www.exodus.to” to “www.gay.com.” Furthermore, the altered image substantially diminishes the potential value of the original image as utilized by Exodus on billboards across America and online. Moreover, your infringing activity creates the false impression that Exodus is sponsoring or endorsing the altered billboard, in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, as it contains the “E” logo mark that belongs to Exodus. You have not been licensed or authorized to use either the image or the logo belonging to Exodus.

The letter is signed by Mathew D. Staver, Esq., of Liberty Counsel, which is based in Orlando [correction] and has offices at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virginia.

Parody is one of the strongholds of free speech in this country. It's why Saturday Night Live can do a Parody of Fox News, for example, and use their actual logo.

This is a bully tactic, and even they know it won't stand up on legal grounds anywhere.

Now I see the logo. However, since the billboard is displayed in a public place, and since this is parody, I would still question whether Staver has any legitimate claim. However, I'm not a lawyer.

Clearly, there must not be much to do around Liberty Counsel's offices these days......

They have no case & they know it. Satire, first amendment and all. Besides, let them drag you into court where everyone on Court TV can view the billboard (both) and learn the truth about Exodus.

Donations to the nonexistent XLDF (Ex-Gay Watch Legal Defense Fund) would be most appreciated.

LOL.....!!!

I love this parody!
After all...the Exodus billboards are unintentionally laughable in their own right.
If I was caught laughing at one of their ads, what would they do, have me cited?

At least if their billboards get damaged or they are made fun of, nobody dies or suffers from emotional abuse.

But their messages and political action has caused suffering.
They are lucky having a laugh at their expense is all they have to deal with.
Just shows how morally mature ex gays actually are, let alone ethics savvy.

Perhaps the XLDF should form. Organizations in Exodus' position are in a terrible "damned if you do, damned if you don't" conflict. What is the "potential value of the original image" here? A billboard with dictionary words? Is there a brand here? Are they charging for this image?

And who would stand to benefit most from a legal action? I think it would be ex-gay watch, because while both sides in this dispute claim they want the truth to out, we consistently hear from ex-ex-gays that they never knew that longterm relationships were possible; they believed the lie that "the gay lifestyle" is anonymous sex in back alleys or the down-low of Brokeback Mountain.

Its pretty obvious they don't like the attention they're getting; countering it with the threat to fix even more attention on it, adding the qualified privilege they will afford when the disputed image is filed as evidence (probably getting you a place at thesmokinggun), seems a pretty dumb move.

But then I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on the Internet and a lawsuit is never fun, even if you feel confident you'll prevail.

A hard fought attempt in Utah to ban GSA's expired on the floor at the close of our legislative session at last night.

You simply MUST hear the audio of this AMAZING debate on the floor of the Utah State Senate

Oops. Good news is, you can be certain that members of Exodus International are reading Ex-Gay Watch daily.

My parody has been up since September 2005 and it didn't hit their radar until now :) Have you thought about tracking their IP addresses to see how frequently they visit the site? How funny would that be? Or perhaps blocking the IP address(es) of Liberty Counsel? The IP address I got the C&D from was 198.66.32.172.

p.s. I've contacted the EFF and ALCU. I'll be posting updates to my blog here: My first cease-and-desist-letter.

I find this typical of the ex-gay movement.

They know full well that no one is going to think "that Exodus is sponsoring or endorsing the altered billboard". They know that this is parady. They know that they have no case.

And yet they send this letter.

They've completely forgotten that Christians are held to tell the truth, regardless of legal posturing. But they hold the truth in such low regard that they feel no hesitation to send this letter with it's untruthful bluffing threats.

Sadly enough, it will probably work. We'll all back down because the unfortunate fact is that we don't have the resources to withstand a legal assault by these well funded bullies.

Isn't it ironic...

PFOX goes to schools and fights against anti-bullying efforts.

Exodus has the well funded Liberty Counsel threaten to sue us with what they know is a bogus claim knowing that we don't have the funds to fight them in court.

I guess bullies look out for each other.

Make sure you report this to www.chillingeffects.org. They track bullshit like this.

Liberty Counsel is headquartered in Orlando, Fla. That's why the contact info is for Orlando. And I'm pretty sure they may have a case when it comes to the logo even if the whole thing is meant to be a parody. And the fact that Falwell lost against Flynn is a separate issue that has nothing to do with this situation. He lost that case because he is a public figure and couldn't prove actual malice.

They don't have a trademark on the "E" logo (I looked it up), and in any case trademarks don't cover partial, stylized, barely visible, blended into the background portions of logo, and even if they did it's still fair use. More here.

Julia

Since you describe yourself as "a fiesty conservative" and express your admiration for Phyllis Schlafly on your website, you might understand when I take your comments on whether or not Exodus has a case with some caution (I didn't review much but that was easily seen).

You may be well qualified to comment on whether a logo can be part of a parody or you may just be putting your two cents worth. However, (though it's probably not fair of me) I suspect that it's just a bit of "my side is always right" and can be written off as either wishful thinking or as an attempt to bolster the credibility of the bullies.

I'm sorry if I'm attributing false motives to you and please don't let my comment stop you from contributing. But feisy conservatives have a very solid history of lying through their teeth when it comes to gay issues. So naturally I'm a little suspicious.

Mike, Don't let those fools intimidate or supress your right to create parodies of them. If Larry Flynt can beat them, so can you!

Thats funny I think I should have done something over them keeping my picture on their Web site even though I am still "gay," their ex-gay conversion therapy doesn't work.

OK, -- and all the usual "I'm not a qualified and permissable person to provide legal advice on matters of United States copyright law" applies.

• this is clearly a parody, produced for no other purpose than comment and criticsm of Exodus' public claims. The entire image may be used if comment and criticism requires it, particularly if there is no issue with direct commercial gain (or loss, see below).

• the image itself is largely a street scene incidental to the actual billboard. That cannot be copyright per se (as anyone could stroll up and take exactly the same photo). Exceptions to this involve artistic works or news reports etc that have a creative or commercial purpose. The copyright work is the billboard itself, and of that only part is arguably copyright (the logo) in a parody.

  
  

• the amount used is relevant only regards the outcome for the original creator. The provisions around how much may reproduced is intended to protect an artist who may find part of an original work distorted or inserted into another work by another artist, or an author who would otherwise find an entire work published. Part use of an image in a montage, or use of direct text for quotes is protected -- but you cannot re-do Warhol's "Marilyn" in a different colour and try to sell it (particularly as a Warhol, but that would be criminal fraud not copyright infringement).

• Use of a copyright logo is more problematic. It is permitted if the parody does not cause others to think that the owner of the logo has authorised the use, or does not cause economic loss etc. This is intended to protect a company product from fraudulent misuse (i.e. a cola Co. branding themself in a way that could cause a consumer to think they were purchasing Pepsi or Coca Cola when they are in fact not) or to protect the commercial interests of the logo owner for their own advertising purposes etc. The Exodus logo, in this case and in the web image form, is barely discernable -- it looks more like a smudge -- and in any case could be easily photoshopped out.

• the effect is to bring Exodus to ridicule, but copyright does not protect Exodus from that. Exodus suffers no economic loss from the mere reproduction itself, and arguably the publicity from the parody may actually commercially benefit them.

My own suggestion is to further smudge/replace the logo until it is completely undiscernable, to end any arguament about that, and await further demands by Exodus itself.

And on that important point... (and I haven't read the one to XGW, but I imagine it reads the same).

Very significantly, Staver's letter to justinsomnia does not claim to have been instructed by Exodus on this occassion. That letter reads that they appear to be making the demand at their own initiative.

"...you will understand our insistence... (emphasis mine)

As such, the C&D may be ignored.

Exodus must initiate any copyright infringement action, not Liberty Counsel. Unless you are clearly told by Exodus itself to C&D -- via Liberty Counsel if Exodus chose to -- any further action is not possible. Liberty Counsel has no standing in the matter.

Or do they??? It may be quite fascinating to uncover who is actually behind the billboards.

So... why not ask Exodus if they have instructed Liberty Counsel on this matter.

Again, a sterling example that christian attorney is an oxymoron.

thin-skinned, jackbooted fascists!

I suspect that their suggestions of potential loss of value goes to what they would consider the misappropriation of the image itself; i.e. their ownership of the picture of the street scene that includes the billboard.

If the billboard is still up, another photographer could photograph the same scene which could be then be altered in the same manner.

I wonder if they would be equally concerned that the photograph might have its value dimished by its republication in an unaltered state?

What was the point of putting up the billboard and putting it on their website in the first place? Wasn't it free promulgation of the ideas and concepts behind it?

It seems to me like they just want the attention of the media over this to resonate around the world. I'd say they are looking for news coverage where they can position themselves as good little christian soldiers who have been hard done by, and attempt to re-ignite debate on an issue over which they have poor leverage.

OK -- but it's not worth spending more than 3 minutes on it. (so no rude comments about rough photo editing etc!)

"C&D? Yeah, Exodus should Cease & Desist with the Fraud!"

Timothy - time to sort some socks :)

Sharon B. said:

"My gut tells me that, as some others have said, this is simply a way to get Exodus in the news in a sympathetic light. It follows their pattern of late."

My prediction: Look for an AgapePress article titled

PRO-FAMILY MINISTER SAYS HOMOSEXUALS SHOW CONTEMPT FOR RULE OF LAW

It will list the many ways in which homosexual activist break the law and include paint on FOTF billboards, eggs on some church, and (their only example that can be tied to "homosexual activists") theft of copyrighted materials. Obviously these horrible people wish to destroy all the rules of society that have allowed us to survive. Blah blah blah about homosexuals wanting to tear down civilization - it's all in their Agenda etc etc.

I've already sorted my socks. I have those that I wear with my jackboots, and that I don't.

Dumb question, probably, but since XGW didn't publish the parody, isn't it the responsibility of the person who actually published the link? XGW publishes links to right-wingnut websites all the time, and they haven't complained, probably due to the fact that they publish links to XGW all the time.

It's probably time to call their bluff.

We did publish a copy of the parody here with Justin's permission / encouragement.

I took it down this morning temporarily while we talk to some experts. I plan to put the parody back up ASAP. I'll put a note in the original post, in the meantime.

First of all take Liberty Counsel to task and nail them to the proverbial wall with the ammunition you need from the ACLU, Lambda Legal, etc!! These inquisitional religious crusading fascists need to have their butts kicked big time. Obviously their made because you have been trampeling on their money making machine.

I hope that as many gays and lesbians as possible copy that parody and place it on their websites. I know I will. Flood the internet with this parody and tell Liberty University, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson that they can start focusing on something more important like following Christ as opposed to being pharisaical pseudo Christians. Unfortunately they are among the worsed examples of how religious power can corrupt people that there are out there. It is organizations like Soulforce, Evangelicals Concerned (a gay affirming Christian organization) and blogs like Ex-Gay Watch that unmask these fanatical religious bigots.

Oh and don't forget to tell Wayne Besen to post a note about this situation as well. He has a lot of experience with these fundamentalists and has done a fantastic job exposing their lunacy.

Well I decided to post it just for fun.

realitycubed.blogspot.com/2006/03/hey-exodus.html

People. Don't come so unhinged! This is about as futile as trying to keep others from feeding trolls. At best this is probably a play for sympathetic news by Exodus that they can then spread through Agape Press (see Timothy's post above). Reacting like a bunch of wild cats on pcp is giving them just what they want.

No one is going to "nail anyone else to the wall" on this. Anyone can send a C&D to anyone else. Let them find out from a real attorney if they broke any laws and, if so, how to prevent that in the future. In the mean time, may I suggest you get an Rx for something like this.

David

Tim,

Thank you for your comments. I have no problem with your decision to assume I lack credibility because I am conservative. It's unfair and highly illustrative of the narrowmindedness that happens with clashing worldviews from my side as well as yours. I personally choose to take everyone's words with a grain of salt and assume that most people posting comments are giving opinions not expertise.

My assumption regarding the use of the Exodus logo was based on my limited knowledge of such law. I am not an attorney, although many have suggested I become one. I was not asserting that I am right, only that I thought it is possible that Liberty Counsel has a case. It is unwise of them to waste financial resources by assembling legal teams, mailing C&D and taking people to court if they know that they have no case. I doubt they'd bother. This is my assumption based on my professional dealings with the Liberty Counsel.

Many on this site have attacked the Liberty Counsel as a bully. What logical basis is there for that idea? The Liberty Counsel is merely a conservative group who uses legal means to seek to protect their interests. The ACLU does the exact same thing on the other side and no one is calling them a bully here. If one is a bully, then all legal groups who have ideological motivation are bullies. I don't agree with that. I disagree with the ACLU on virtually everything because of my views, all of which I can make an articulate, reasoned and well-researched case for. But that does not make them a bully.

Last question Tim, what "solid history of lying through our teeth about gay issues" are you referring to? Have you considered that my side isn't lying, but holding an opinion that you think is patently false and so to you it sounds like a lie?

My only other question (and this is for everyone on the board) is why some people care so much about some gays deciding they don't want to be that way and going to Exodus for help? Why can't this be a live and let live scenario?

Is this a DMCA complaint?

Julie, seriously, you said

Why can't this be a live and let live scenario?

Sounds like a great idea. So why do the people you support -- Liberty Counsel et al --advocate criminal laws against gay men and women? You can do your own researching, so go find a list of who put briefs into Lawrence v Texas. Are anti-gay laws "live and let live"?

If you care to take any time around ExGayWatch you will notice time and time again that it is (generally) agreed that anyone is entitled to do whatever they wish with their life. And that includes people who want to try and remake themself as heterosexual, regardless.

But why do they wish to do that? It is because of anti-gay attitudes. And why do they think they can do that? It is because of the fraudulent claims made by groups such as Exodus.

It is that fraud we largely discuss here. The lie that gay men and women are a menace to society, a danger to children, promiscuous, mentally ill, etc etc. And that we could chose to be heterosexual if we weren't so selfish and perverse. While all those may be your firmly held opinions, I don't know, they are also lies. None of us here need to be told what it is like to be gay. We are also fully aware that some people hate us, and some seek to harm us.

So, I'll put the question back to you -- why is it that some people care so much about slandering and harming gay men and women? Including Liberty Counsel.

Posted by: grantdale at March 2, 2006 06:07 PM

Grantdale, you guys are ****in' geniuses, I am truly humbled.

Posted by: Julia at March 3, 2006 10:23 AM
Julia, you ask Timothy what history conservatives have of lying through their teeth - you are incredibly out of touch, for God's sake read through some of the archives of exgaywatch and you'll find lie after lie by religious conservatives. For starters, how about conservatives using studies on people being treated for AIDs and telling people the behavior typical of that group of promiscuous people is typical of gays in general, in one case conservatives took STD infection rates from gays visiting an STD clinic and said "in some populations of gays disease rates run as high as 80%. What would one expect to find at an STD clinic??!!? Why would someone even go there UNLESS THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD AN STD??!! It would have been just as valid to look at an 80% disease rates amongst the clinic's heterosexual patients and say "some populations of heterosexuals have disease rates as high as 80%.

How about the constant lying when religious conservatives at Exodus say "complete change is possible" and encourage the belief they mean its possible to completely change same sex into opposite sex attractions when they really mean its possible to stop having same sex sex.

Frankly I don't much care if any individual chooses knowingly to repress their same sex attractions to their own detriment but that's not good enough for people like you, you conservatives want to use "exgays" to pressure all gays to disappear - you don't live and let live, you try to prevent all GLBTs from marrying when it has no direct affect you you whatsoever, you conservativesencourage people to believe the lie that people can simply choose to be attracted to the opposite sex instead of what they feel in the core of their being. Don't let your ego get so overblown, I pretend to have a lawyer's knowledge at times too and that doesn't make you a genius (like grantdale).

Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2006 11:49 AM

Ooops, that above post was by Randi Schimnosky

My only other question (and this is for everyone on the board) is why some people care so much about some gays deciding they don't want to be that way and going to Exodus for help? Why can't this be a live and let live scenario?

How does support for sodomy laws and opposition to same sex marriage and anti discrimination laws fit into a live and let live scenario?

A lot of people object to Exodus for its inflated claims that reparative therapy changes orientation and that it holds up as role models married ex-gays, when it must know by internal experience that said married ex-gays still have gay orientation and cheat on their spouses (or simply don't give spouses the love they deserve). The British ex-gay group Courage at least states that change in orientation is unlikely and that their goal is to help those who wish to be celibate, a more honest way to reconcile with a particular theological interpretation of same-sex sex acts.

Julia,

Thank you for responding. I hope I wasn't too offensive in explaining why I has hesitant about your position.

If you were to read much here you would know that I too would call myself a "conservative". However I make the distinction between economic and social conservative. While I support economic policies and issues of foreign relations and security that place long-term planning a higher priority than wealth distribution (a true conservative) I don't have much use for the school of thought that says that some people due to their religous beliefs get to tell other people how to live (a social conservative).

Your latest post make three incorrect assumptions:

First, you assume that we all suppose that the ACLU is not a bully. I share with you the belief that they too use bullying tactics. And I don't like it when they do, whether or not I agree with the underlying principle they are arguing. The ACLU has a long history of trying to establish policy by finding someone who can't afford to counter their position and suing. It isn't pretty.

Yet two wrongs don't make a right. And "they did it first" is the retort of the childish. Liberty Counsel purports to be Christian and thus they are supposed to behave with a higher lever of integrity. But they do not.

Second, you assume that when I refer to lying that I mean that "your side" is telling things I don't want to hear. That isn't what I object to. What I mean by lying, Julia, is saying thing that are false, stating facts that are not true. These are not gray areas, Julia. They are not unintentional. If you look through our site, you will see that the primary focus of this site is to document such lies. We are less of an ideological site and more of a monitor. Let me give you three lies off the top of my head that we've dealt with recently:

1. "All gay people were either molested or have a distant relationship with their parents." This is simply untrue and has nothing to support it yet Focus on the Family's Melissa Fryrear makes the claim regularly.

2. "There is no such thing as a monogamous long-term same-sex relationship." We have demonstrated this to be false over and over and yet Exodus' Alan Chambers makes this claim regularly.

3. "Gay men die on average at age 42." This has been proven to be an impossible statistic based on bizarre methodology and everyone in the ex-gay movement knows it to be laughably false. Yet Love In Action's John Smid was telling a parent as recent as last fall that his son would be dead or have AIDS by 30.

Our objection is not to your belief stucture. We can debate morality or Scripture until the cows come home. What we object to, Julia, is that your side are liars (which some would say disqualifies them to talk about morality).

We object to bizarre claims made about our lives and about the effectiveness of ex-gay ministries, and about how those claims are used to try to effect public policy. Only a fool or a zealot would try to base public policy on lies. Why does "your side" try to do so?

Third, you seem to think that we oppose ex-gays. That is not the case. Those individuals who wish to pursue that effort are certainly welcome to do so.

Unfortunately, however, few ex-gay ministries simply serve those who wish to try to reorient. Most seek an anti-gay political agenda or make use of deceit.

The jury is still out on whether some gay people can change their sexual orientation from attraction to the same sex to attraction to the opposite sex. It's clear that most cannot, regardless of the effort, but perhaps some can. There are still others who recognize that they cannot change their orientation but wish to live as though they were attracted to the opposite sex. That's their life and they are welcome to it.

But that's individuals. Most of the ex-gay groups use tactics that have resulted in severely negative consequences in many of their participants. And Exodus, PFOX, and Focus on the Family are all participate in an extremely anti-gay political agenda.

So I would have no idea where to recommend someone who really wanted to try to change their orientation.

You speak of "live and let live". If you really want to live and let live, Julia, you will disavow the anti-gay activism that permiates "your side".

Admit it, Julia, gay people are not trying to harm straight people in any way, we all have straight people we love. The vast majority of gay people are not trying Christians in any way, many of us are Christians. But the same can't be said for "your side".

In the past year, "your side" has advocated criminalizing sex between couples in a committed long-term monogamous relationships, forbidding gay people from adopting their neices or nephews if something were to happen to their sister, forbidding gay couples to share health insurance even if they pay for it, and the list goes on and on.

And the great irony is that if gay people say "treat me they way you treat yourself", this is considered to be an attack on Christians (as though Christ didn't command it) or family or whatever. This isn't the attitude of live and let live.

We support "live and let live". Your side does not.

So, Julia, I hope that you do consider "live and let live". I support that position and would love to have you as an ally for that cause.

typo: that should read "The vast majority of gays are not trying to hurt Christians...."

Julia, the "what "solid history of lying through our teeth about gay issues" are you referring to? " question either shows your ignorance (i use this in the sense that we are all ignorant on some topic or other) or purposeful obtuseness. Lets hope it's the former.

The lies are innumerable and one need only to go to any web site of organizations like cwfa, frc, fof, afa and others: just a few.

1. average life span of gays and lesbians, or gays alone, is forty some years old, only 2% make it to 65.
2. a foster child is 11 times more likely to be abused by a homosexual.
3. gay men abuse children at 40 times the rate that straight men do.
4. 70% of all homosexuals regularly ingest feces.

and the list of hateful lies goes on and an. These are not honest 'opinions' but are outright falsehoods.

And you wonder why people like us don't trust a conservative stranger who admires Schafly (who herself has spread some of these lies) to tell the truth?

Julia,

Per your "Live and let live" comment. I agree with what others have said about it, but wanted to add that there is a legitimate reason not to "live and let live" when someone is providing false and potentially dangerous information. I fully support the right of a gay person who wishs to undergo "reparative therapy" if that's what they choose (may I assume you'd be equally supportive of the rights of a straight person who wished to undergo "therapy" to become gay?). I do however believe that person as the right to know the facts before making such a decision. The facts are that every major medica and scientific organization considers "reparative therapy" to be completely ineffective and frequently extremely dangerous. Do you not think people who may be considering putting themselves through it ought to be given that information? Would you support a doctor performing a dangerous surgery with little chance of success on a patient while telling them it was risk-free? I'm all for "live and let live" but that means being willing to provide others with ALL the information and then letting them live as they see fit based on that knowlege.

Randi, oh cringe... don't do that.

I think all of here appreciate a "nice job on that one" from time to time, but if you wait around with the two of us long enough... I'm absolutely sure we'll (again) say something that makes us appear to be complete ****in' idiots.

Please don't call us that either :)

Oh, dear. . .how dare anyone parody a scam? Maybe they are more concerned about these parodies potentially hurting business. . .seems to me that these little industries promoting fear and then offering to repair it are part of the bread and butter of the "religious" Right.

I equate reparative therapies to diet and smoking cessation programs. Do these work 100%? No. Does that mean they are extremely dangerous? No. Do we move to have them eliminated completely from society? No.

As a former President of the American Psychological Association and Fellow of the APA's Lesbian and Gay division, Robert Perloff, said - "If homosexuals choose to transform their sexuality into heterosexuality, that resolve and deci