They insist on spinning the YouTube takedown issue as 'blatant censorship', but in fact the YouTube video received a copyright takedown notice from a photograph

They insist on spinning the YouTube takedown issue as 'blatant censorship', but in fact the YouTube video received a copyright takedown notice from a photographer whose content the film uses, not from some green energy lobby. That alone seems like enough to bring the filmmakers' credibility into serious doubt. It doesn't seem crystal clear at a glance whether the copyright complaint is well founded, or if it's fair-use, but I don't see that it matters much either way. Spinning it as 'blatant censorship' seems pretty silly. Even discounting this, and the Guardian article, Wikipedia lists a number of serious issues with the film.