Wednesday, April 16, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

by Ethan Smith

UPDATE:
PZ Myers chimes in:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/the_sleaze_is_growing.php
Prefix Mag: The Killers didn't give permission either?
http://www.prefixmag.com/news/update-ben-stein-did-not-acquire-the-rights-to-the/18179/
Expelled Exposed
http://expelledexposed.com/

Reposted from:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Having ruffled feathers in the scientific community, the filmmakers behind a documentary questioning evolution theory have now incurred the wrath of one of the most powerful figures in the popular music business, Yoko Ono, and have generated a blogosphere mini-drama in the process.

The flap concerns the film's use of the song "Imagine," by the late John Lennon. Bloggers had accused Ms. Ono, Mr. Lennon's wife, of selling out by licensing the song to the filmmakers. In fact, her lawyers say, she never granted permission for its use.

The movie is set to open Friday on 1,000 screens, according to a press release from Premise Media Corp., the film's producer.

The dustup has already led to both a scathing article and a retraction on the site HuffingtonPost.com, where Wednesday afternoon writer James Boyce took back an article he had posted 48 hours earlier: "I apologize to Mrs. Lennon for my incorrect assumptions and statements in the article below which, of course, I retract completely."

Word of the song's appearance in "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" outraged bloggers, who immediately began speculating about why Ms. Ono would allow the song to appear in what they characterized as "creationist propaganda." ("What else would you expect them to say?" asked Mark Mathis, the film's associate producer. "They're absolutely infuriated when anyone dares question their philosophy.")

"I guess that the $20 million plus the estate earns every year isn't enough for Yoko Ono," Mr. Boyce wrote Monday in the Huffington Post, referring to an income estimate printed by Forbes magazine. "Not only does she feel the need to license the song out, she probably held out for the highest bidder."

But according to a lawyer for Ms. Ono, the filmmakers did not have permission to use the song, for any amount of money.

Ms. Ono's lawyer, Jonas Herbsman, of Shukat, Arrow, Hafer, Weber & Herbsman, said in an interview Wednesday: "It was not licensed." With respect to the filmmakers, he says: "We are exploring all options." It is not clear what remedies if any may be available to Ms. Ono.

In a written statement, the film's three producers -- Walt Ruloff, John Sullivan and Logan Craft -- acknowledged that they did not seek permission, but they called the use "momentary." "After seeking the opinion of legal counsel it was seen as a First Amendment issue and protected under the fair use doctrine of free speech," the statement said. A spokeswoman said under 25 seconds of the song are used in the movie.

Typically when producers want to use a song in a film or television program, they need permission from at least two parties: the song's publisher and the record label that distributes the recording they want to use. Big-name artists often retain veto power over any such uses, and in the case of Mr. Lennon's music, those decisions lie in the hands of Ms. Ono.

The film stars Ben Stein, a Yale-educated lawyer and popular pundit who for the film affects a persona akin to a conservative version of Michael Moore, the provocative liberal documentary filmmaker. According to early reviews and the film's trailers, "Expelled" purports to demonstrate that American academia routinely discriminates against people who espouse so-called "intelligent design" theory -- a proposed alternative to evolution that would allow for the participation of a supernatural force in critical biological processes.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and others have complained in various public statements that they were duped into participating in interviews for the film. They have said the filmmakers misprepresented the kind of movie they were making. Mr. Mathis, the film's associate producer, disputed that account, saying he personally described the film to interview subjects and even sent many of them the questions he planned to ask.

Bloggers also questioned whether another popular rock group, the Killers, had given permission for the inclusion in the film of one of their songs, "All These Things That I've Done." A spokesman for Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, which owns the band's record label and music publisher, said licenses had been issued.

Write to Ethan Smith at ethan.smith@wsj.com

Update: from James Boyce

In turns out The Killers were duped into having their music and they are mad about it.

Here's the message from their board:

"I just spoke to the band's manager, and adding to the confusion was the fact that they did authorize a project months ago with this request:

Quote:
'The film is a satirical documentary with an estimated running time of 1 hour and 50 minutes, exploring academic freedom in public schools and government institutions with actor, comedian, economist, Ben Stein as the spokesperson.'

What they authorized was a documentary about 'academic freedom in schools', not the film that the producers produced.

They contacted the producers of the film to ask that the song be removed but it is too late. Unfortunately it was misrepresented to them when the request came through to use it. Add this band to a long line of people who were misled by the producers of this film."

UPDATE: Shermer sent this to Ethan at the WSJ, and sent me a copy as well for the site:

Ethan,

I just read your WSJ piece on Yoko and the use of an excerpt from Imagine in the film Expelled, in which I appear. Here is an interesting tidbit for you: In my book How We Believe (Henry Holt/Times Books, 2000), I have a chapter on how religious attitudes changed dramatically in the 1960s, and I wanted to include just four lines from Imagine, which I figured was within fair-use limits. My publisher thought otherwise and insisted that I get permission from Yoko first, so I wrote her, making it clear that the thesis of my book meshes well with the religious attitudes of John Lennon. She turned me down!

So if Yoko wouldn't give me permission to print an excerpt, what are the chances that she'll just let the Expelled folks get away with actually playing an excerpt from the song? I suspect that they are in big trouble now...

Michael Shermer
Skeptics Society

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 203 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #162391 by eclampusvitus on April 16, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Kudos to Mr. Boyce for his gracious retraction.

ECV

Other Comments by eclampusvitus

2. Comment #162393 by tman on April 16, 2008 at 9:06 pm

First post!

Somebody please start suing them!

Other Comments by tman

3. Comment #162394 by HourglassMemory on April 16, 2008 at 9:06 pm

When you think they can't get any worse, they do.
Such shame.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

4. Comment #162396 by Layla Nasreddin on April 16, 2008 at 9:19 pm

I somehow doubt that John would have approved of the use of his song in this context (just listen to his song "God" with the "I don't believe in..." litany), even though he denied being an atheist ("People got the image I was anti-Christ or anti-religion. I'm not at all. I'm a most religious fellow. I'm religious in the sense of admitting there is more to it than meets the eye. I'm certainly not an atheist." September 1980).

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

5. Comment #162398 by maureen on April 16, 2008 at 9:40 pm

I work in the film industry and know that although these guys may be dumb, they're not dumb enough to think this would fly.

They didn't license this on purpose - it's a costly publicity stunt. I'm sure they have a huge line item category called 'lawsuits' in their budget. There is no such thing as a "momentary use" and anyone in the biz knows this. Every film is required to carry E&O (errors & omission) insurance. It usually covers the film up to 1 million dollars but you must provide a statement saying that you have obtained all of the necessary clearances so that your coverage is clean and that there are no exclusions. No distributor (foreign, domestic, TV, dvd sales, etc.) will pick up your film if there are exclusions. I just wonder if the insurance would even kick in on this kind of thing if you blatantly didn't obtain the license. I have never had that issue because I, like everyone else in this business, practice good ethics when it comes to licensing copyrighted material. We license, pay and credit the artists their due. I thought Christians were supposed to be honest? I will do some digging with insurance companies and see what the ramifications are.

Other Comments by maureen

6. Comment #162399 by Serdan on April 16, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Not. Surprised.

Stealing for Jesus?

Other Comments by Serdan

7. Comment #162400 by ME!0364 on April 16, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Lawsuuit! Lawsuit! Lawsuit! (chant it with me people)

Other Comments by ME!0364

8. Comment #162402 by friendly-atheist on April 16, 2008 at 9:54 pm

wait, the killers let them use their song?

Other Comments by friendly-atheist

9. Comment #162403 by Roland_F on April 16, 2008 at 9:58 pm

2. Comment #162393 by tman

Somebody please start suing them!

Why should someone jump into the lions den and risk a costly lawsuit against the religious multi billion US$ organization ?
We had another discussion tread here about copyright infringement of the 'Expelled' trailer animation movie sequence of inner cell activities.

The 'Expelled' producers have the best lawer for copyright infringement on their legal team, very deep pockets and most of their budget reserved for lawsuits not for producing the film.

So it's like Microsoft: take the good ideas from small companies who can't survive a legal battle or just sue them yourself to bankrupt them to get their ideas for free (or just the salary of you legal department which M$ has anyway on their permanent payroll)

Other Comments by Roland_F

10. Comment #162405 by Goodwithwood on April 16, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Now this one really pisses me off. Did you know that some christian rock groups sing this song with changed lyrics. "Imagine no religion" becomes "Imagine one religion".
John Lennon is sacred ground (pun Intended).
Gotta rope?

GWW

Other Comments by Goodwithwood

11. Comment #162406 by Damien White on April 16, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Honestly, how long would it have taken James Boyce to check his facts before blogging?

Perhaps if people are going to comment on 'Expelled' or whatever as atheists representative of a wider group they need to be far less eager to fly off the handle and actually check things out first.

Can you imagine what the makers of Expelled could have done with this if they'd got their act together? "Look at those crazy atheists all jumping to the wrong conclusions!" they'd crow, "that's all they ever do, that's why they're atheists."

Atheists as a group enjoy being characterised as rational thinkers, so we should probably display rational thought wherever possible.

Other Comments by Damien White

12. Comment #162407 by TruthByEvidence on April 16, 2008 at 10:13 pm

If Yoko Ono supports Lennon being involved in this...

I shall be very disappointed.

Other Comments by TruthByEvidence

13. Comment #162408 by Bigorra on April 16, 2008 at 10:14 pm

There are two things that I learned from this article.

1. When somebody makes me take sides with Yoko Ono, they've gone too far. Dragging John Lennon into their crummy movie for schmaltzy emotional appeal makes me sick. I hope Yoko takes them for everything she can get.

2. I will never listen to the Killers again, which coincides well with my policy of not listening to them in the first place.

Other Comments by Bigorra

14. Comment #162410 by jim maughan on April 16, 2008 at 10:18 pm

I put this up at HuffPo in reply to James Boyce's article slagging Ono. I'd also cut the Killer's (never heard of 'em but then I'm an old fart) some slack util I find out if they'd been lied to like Dawkins and Myers and Shermer and....

Anyone who's been following the Expelled fiasco knows the producers are serial liars.
All Boyce had to do was contact Ono or her reps to find out whether she gave permission and under what circumstances. But then, what do expect from a commentator on Fox News.

Boyce is a disgrace.

Jim Maughan

Other Comments by jim maughan

15. Comment #162411 by sarah95 on April 16, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Comment #162408 by Bigorra

1. When somebody makes me take sides with Yoko Ono, they've gone too far. Dragging John Lennon into their crummy movie for schmaltzy emotional appeal makes me sick. I hope Yoko takes them for everything she can get.

Hear hear!!

2. I will never listen to the Killers again, which coincides well with my policy of not listening to them in the first place.

The licensure decision may have been over the heads of the band. We don't know that they were even involved in the decision. The fact that they haven't recorded anything near-decent since their first album would be a better reason to never listen to the again.

Other Comments by sarah95

16. Comment #162412 by riki on April 16, 2008 at 10:30 pm

"no intelligence" at least they got that bit right.

Other Comments by riki

17. Comment #162413 by MelM on April 16, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Comment #162398 by maureen

I'm looking forward to see what maureen can come up with. Should be interesting.

Other Comments by MelM

18. Comment #162414 by Skep on April 16, 2008 at 10:37 pm

I'm torn between my disire to see the Expelled liars get their comeuppance and my support for Fair Use. Depending on the context of the Imagine clip it may be reasonable fair use--and since reasonable fair use benefits us all, I would support their right to use the clip even though I don't support the producers of the film otherwise.

nt #162393 by tman on April 16, 2008 at 9:06 pm
First post!

I propose that anyone who's "First Post" is, in fact, not first must stop posting "First Post." I bet you honk your horn when driving through tunnels.

Other Comments by Skep

19. Comment #162415 by Bigorra on April 16, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Comment #162411 by sarah95

The licensure decision may have been over the heads of the band. We don't know that they were even involved in the decision.

That may be, so I'll reserve a personal judgment on them until we hear what the band says. Either way, they should be more protective of their image. I get a bit ornery at all the music that gets commercialized these days. Popular music can be used well, i.e. 'Layla' in Goodfellas, or it can be used horribly, i.e. the Beatles' 'Hello Goodbye' as a Target ad. Either case in the movie is a horrible use.

Other Comments by Bigorra

20. Comment #162416 by WilliamP on April 16, 2008 at 10:48 pm

What a fiasco this movie has become. It seems to be a publicity stunt for the Intelligent Design movement that keeps generating bad publicity. It hasn't even been released yet and its makers have been accused of plagiarism, possible copywright infringement, misrepresenting themselves to experts appearing in it, and denying a potential critic access despite its contention that critics of evolution are being silenced.

The film supposedly tries to link evolution with Nazism, but it's far more successful in liking Intelligent Design with dishonesty and charlatanism. It's not surprising given that the latter connection is far stronger.

Other Comments by WilliamP

21. Comment #162418 by jesustweak on April 16, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Quick, order your FREE! "Age of the Planet Earth" disk from Dr. Dino. Makes a great coaster for your favorite alcoholic beverage. If you overindulge, you can put it in the player and see if it makes sense.

http://www.drdino.com/expelledoffer/?gclid=CP-z7ZOy4ZICFQ8qIgodtAwQ6Q

Other Comments by jesustweak

22. Comment #162421 by Layla Nasreddin on April 16, 2008 at 11:29 pm

I was under the impression that a filmmaker ALWAYS has to acquire the synchronization ("sync") rights to a song if he/she wants to include a particular recording of it in his/her film, which can be quite expensive, in the tens of thousands of dollars, even if you only use a few seconds! How they can get away with this, I don't know. I mean, this isn't a Youtube video where the creator is not getting any revenue from it; it's supposedly a Major Motion Picture Event from which they are presumably trying to make money.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

23. Comment #162422 by jo5ef on April 16, 2008 at 11:31 pm

The Killers lead singer is an egotistical mormon so, no big surprise. Shilling for the DI sure doesnt do much for your rock star credibility but IMO their music is overrated and derivative anyways.

Other Comments by jo5ef

24. Comment #162426 by DamnDirtyApe on April 17, 2008 at 12:15 am

As we so fondly say on the interweb - Ownage!

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

25. Comment #162427 by RainDear on April 17, 2008 at 12:19 am

One thing strikes me as odd with Maureen's early, otherwise knowledgeable post. How has she come to a conclusion that Christians are supposed to be honest?

Usually any group thinking they have a higher idea, even a supernatural power behind them, considers it fair to use almost any means necessary to have their way. Honesty is hardly inherent to religious or dogmatic thinking.

This has clearly been the case with christians, muslims, hindus, satanists, nazis, communists... not to mention patriotic groups, religious or secular.

Other Comments by RainDear

26. Comment #162429 by Raiko on April 17, 2008 at 12:27 am

"After seeking the opinion of legal counsel it was seen as a First Amendment issue and protected under the fair use doctrine of free speech"

The fact that they're exploiting the 'freedom of speech' argument once again for their propaganda is just slightly sickening.

Other Comments by Raiko

27. Comment #162432 by Russell Blackford on April 17, 2008 at 1:11 am

I'm glad that Yoko is exonerated. :)

As for the Expelled people, you know they just may have a legal and moral case in support of their use of Lennon's song. I haven't seen the movie, but judging by the description they used a brief segment of it in such a context as to comment ironically on its message. I'd defend the right of people to do that if it turns out to be an accurate interpretation of what happened. It doesn't matter whether they are my ideological opponents (as the Expelled folks certainly are) or my friends. In fact, I think it's important to the credibility of the whole atheist/rationalist movement that we always defend everyone's rights, even those of our opponents, in a principled way.

Again, I say this without having seen the film, but it's a plausible interpretation and might explain why they received the legal advice that they (supposedly) did.

This scenario should also have occurred to Mr Boyce before he accused Yoko Ono of selling out.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

28. Comment #162434 by Ian on April 17, 2008 at 1:13 am

RE post 21:

We're sorry, we were unable to accept your request as the following issues have occurred:
That gift certificate code is not valid, please re-enter.

DANG! I'm so dissappointed! ;-P

Other Comments by Ian

29. Comment #162436 by PJG on April 17, 2008 at 1:18 am

If this, along with ripping off Harvard's "Inner Life of the Cell", is a deliberate ploy to get publicity for the film, then it simply shows them up as being doubly dishonest and can be seen to be a deliberate theft (with a motive), not a "mistake".

I asked on another thread: Does anyone know if there any law that would make it illegal for cinemas to show a film that is sub-judice? If Harvard, or Yoko Ono, were to serve a writ (if that is the term) could the film be put on general release before the matter is resolved?

Please don't get me wrong, I don't want to censor this film. I think it should be shown everywhere... with an "equal time" rebuttal. I want a worldwide TV airing of it being taken apart, scene by scene, lie by lie. Give them the publicity they crave, and show up for the ignorant and mendacious crowd they are.

Other Comments by PJG

30. Comment #162438 by mixmastergaz on April 17, 2008 at 1:24 am

Perhaps they could replace "Imagine" in the soundtrack with the sound of a barrel being scraped?

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

31. Comment #162440 by Russell Blackford on April 17, 2008 at 1:31 am

PJG, to stop the movie being shown pending trial the plaintiff (Harvard, Yoko, or whoever) would have to obtain an interlocutory injunction (or whatever it's called in America). In doing so, they would have to give an undertaking to pay for any damage they thereby caused to the defendant (presumably whatever company or whatever is flogging Expelled) in the event of losing at trial.

I doubt that courts in the US would be interested in issuing an injunction in a case like this where it would be blocking someone's message from going out, but maybe I'm wrong. You need advice from an American lawyer with experience in such cases.

From where I sit, however, it doesn't look as if it would be straightforward. And that's just as well. Remember, next time there's such a case it could be some shonky law suit against you or me or Richard Dawkins, brought by some wingnut from the American religious Right. The rules have to protect everyone in all the cases that come before the courts.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

32. Comment #162442 by Logicel on April 17, 2008 at 1:35 am

The movie is set to open Friday on 1,000 screens,...
_____

As of 2007, there are roughly 39,000 movie theatre screens (http://www.natoonline.org/statisticsscreens.htm)

Maybe Expelled is opening in Afghanistan?

Other Comments by Logicel

33. Comment #162445 by irate_atheist on April 17, 2008 at 1:41 am

32. Comment #162442 by Logicel -

The movie is set to open Friday on 1,000 screens,...

...and to close on 999 on Saturday.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

34. Comment #162449 by bamboospitfire on April 17, 2008 at 1:56 am

What Bigorra said.

25 seconds of a song is a lot. I seem to recall Metallica successfully suing another band for using the chords E and F in a certain manner. Ono should take Expelled to the cleaners. I would be very disappointed if she doesn't. However, I agree that this may all be a ploy to make the producers of Expelled look like the victims that they claim to be. If so, I have rarely seen such despicable behaviour.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

35. Comment #162474 by Geoff on April 17, 2008 at 2:42 am

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

PZ's on the case, too, of course!

Anyway, no matter how the lawyers dance, one thing is clear: the makers of Expelled have been paragons of ethical dubiety, doing their best to skirt the edges of the law and sneak as much doubtful, dishonestly obtained content into their little propaganda movie as they can. I guess they had to skimp on the budget for the actual content of the movie to scrape together a very large advertising budget â€" it's as if their movie is a metaphor for all of Intelligent Design creationism.

Other Comments by Geoff

36. Comment #162504 by Darwin's badger on April 17, 2008 at 3:16 am

I'm surprised that they have any part of their collective foot left to aim at, it must be riddled with bullet-holes by now. :)

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

37. Comment #162505 by hao on April 17, 2008 at 3:17 am

I thought 'fair use' was for NON-COMMERCIAL purposes ONLY. Sounds like bullshit to me. IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer)! Any lawyers here? Russell Blackford? Although I'd guess you'd have to be familiar with American IP law..

Aha, wiki says "While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it doesn't make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crewâ€"Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use." Although the case citied is parody, whereas it doesn't seem the Expelled would be (I've not seen the movie though). I guess they could argue that.

"the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." (Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Â§ 107) is also a factor to consider..

If maureen is right, then it would seem the distributor(s) would want to drop the film, just to cover their asses.. Seems fair to me, although the Expelled people could just play the 'free speech' card again, which is just bullshit. (They could use any other medium they want.) Also, crime doesn't come under 'free speech'..

And copyright infringement can come under criminal law! (As the producers of Expelled seemed to know, with their talk of 'traitors' or whatever it was and "$250,000 fines").
Wikipedia: "In addition to the civil remedies, the Copyright Act provides for criminal prosecution in some cases of willful copyright infringement.. A fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, for the first offense.."

Other Comments by hao

38. Comment #162509 by lozzer on April 17, 2008 at 3:22 am

Seriously if creationists hate fact so much then why doesn't everyone in medical research stop their work when the theory of evolution takes part.
So then everyone starts dyeing from super bugs and Creationists begin running around screaming 'The flying men are coming the flying men are coming!'
Theeeen everyone including devout Christians begin ridiculing them for what they did to society.
It could happen...

Other Comments by lozzer

39. Comment #162550 by decius on April 17, 2008 at 4:04 am

"I guess that the $20 million plus the estate earns every year isn't enough for Yoko Ono," Mr. Boyce wrote Monday in the Huffington Post, referring to an income estimate printed by Forbes magazine. "Not only does she feel the need to license the song out, she probably held out for the highest bidder."

What a representative piece of creationist twisted logic that wouldn't bamboozle a five-year-old but perfectly acceptable to the average moronic christian.

By the same line of reasoning (duh), one should feel free to use cracked software -provided it was designed by a rich company like Windows- or to shoplift at Harrod's.

Other Comments by decius

40. Comment #162569 by Vaal on April 17, 2008 at 4:42 am

Ah man. That has made my morning. Can these guys get any more incompetent?

Other Comments by Vaal

41. Comment #162571 by Gymnopedie on April 17, 2008 at 4:45 am

Anybody remember the 8th and 9th Commandments?

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

42. Comment #162577 by aznxscorpion517 on April 17, 2008 at 5:00 am

The lead singer of The Killers is a Mormon. Not sure about the other members of the band.

Although, even so, I doubt they would want their reputation "expelled" by being a part of this crap.

Other Comments by aznxscorpion517

43. Comment #162583 by Luthien on April 17, 2008 at 5:09 am

Decius, I absolutely LOVE your avatar! Where did you find it??? <3 <3 <3

Other Comments by Luthien

44. Comment #162586 by rod-the-farmer on April 17, 2008 at 5:18 am

Re comment 162445 by irate_atheist

The movie is set to open Friday on 1,000 screens, and to close on 999 on Saturday.

As I have said before,

I am reminded of an interchange between Winston Churchill and George Bernard Shaw. Apparently Shaw once sent a note to Churchill that his new play was opening on Friday, and he had left two tickets for Churchill, saying, "Bring a friend, if you have one." Churchill responded that he was unable to come to the opening night, "but will come the second night, if you have one."

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

45. Comment #162597 by j.mills on April 17, 2008 at 5:49 am

"Not only does she feel the need to license the song out, she probably held out for the highest bidder."

What does Boyce mean? Were there lots of creationists bidding to use "Imagine" in their own movies?? Are there more on the way?!

Other Comments by j.mills

46. Comment #162599 by akado on April 17, 2008 at 5:52 am

hmmmmmmmmmmm....
everyday it's a new scandal concerning the same people(whihc I am sure says a lot about them)
wonder what amazing thing will be revealed of their pure incompetence, stupid, hypocritical, and pure insane ways of thinking and doing things next week! XD

Other Comments by akado

47. Comment #162607 by Noodly on April 17, 2008 at 6:08 am

maureen:

They didn't license this on purpose - it's a costly publicity stunt.

I agree with you. They appear to have split the marketing budget into legitimate and illegitimate tactics. Each copyright infringement is designed to keep the headlines going and will be conceded after a perfunctory defense.

Yoko Ono should be given more credit, she has always refused religious requests to change the lyrics to Imagine. I expect Expelled to back down and change the backing track to Imogen by John Lemon.

Other Comments by Noodly

48. Comment #162619 by heafnerj on April 17, 2008 at 6:22 am

I've thought for some time that this whole fiasco might be nothing more than a huge, well planned publicity stunt designed solely to keep people talking about it.

Other Comments by heafnerj

49. Comment #162621 by Russell Blackford on April 17, 2008 at 6:28 am

hao, strictly speaking it might not be a parody, but if it's played over the kind of images that I gather it is - in an attempt to create some kind of ironic or undercutting effect - I think it's conceptually very similar to a parody and that a court just might think the same way.

Not only am I not an American IP lawyer, but it's some time since I've practised law at all, and never in this field. For this purpose, I'm just a thinking about it from first principles. But all that said, I don't think these folks are poorly resourced or lacking in cunning. They probably obtained legal advice on each of the alleged copyright infringements. I don't see how they can defend the one re the Harvard cell film (and am surprised that they're seeking declaratory relief, though I suppose that's one of their few options with it hanging over their heads). But I'm guessing that they may be able to defend their use of "Imagine".

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

50. Comment #162622 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:34 am

Russell,

I left a message on your blog regarding art and religion. Want to hear your thought on it.

Other Comments by Bonzai

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next | Last