Yoko Ono vs. Ben Stein: Imagine There's No Expelled...
from the who-do-you-side-with? dept
Talk about a legal argument I'd want no part of: Yoko Ono is suing the makers of the anti-evolution documentary Expelled. The movie has received a ton of bad press, and there have been widespread dissections with the many problems in the movie which seems to have difficulty understanding what the scientific method is actually about. Apparently, in one part of the movie, the famous John Lennon song "Imagine" is used, and some of the people complaining about the movie got angry at Ono, thinking she had licensed the song to be in such a controversial movie. The clip was not licensed -- but the filmmakers claim that it's protected fair use, saying that they're using a short clip of the song for commentary purposes. I haven't seen the film, nor can I find that particular clip online, but, as awful as Expelled sounds, I have a hard time siding with Yoko Ono on this. Media companies have, for too long, been overly aggressive in claiming that any use of music in a movie must be licensed. That seems to go against the concept of fair use entirely, and it would be good to change that. I just wish it wasn't with a movie such as this one.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ben stein, copyright, expelled, fair use, imagine, yoko ono
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sharing all the world
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sharing all the world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I support Ono on this, hope she sues the pants off these idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not to nitpick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not to nitpick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"did not see th emovie'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "did not see th emovie'
Or not:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "did not see th emovie'
I hadn't read that before but it's pretty damn informative about the agenda behind the movie, not that I'm surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "did not see the movie'
The chaos that is the observable universe is absolutely possible without "an intelligent hand involved."
However, the main point of this article is that Ben's producers took liberties with copywrited, protected materials, and did not receive permission from said material's owners. Whether you like Yoko Ono or not, she and her departed husband would have never allowed the use of their music in the making of this movie.
Even other musicians have to get permission from song owners to use 5 second clips from their music in another song. Same goes for movie sound tracks.
It's a simple matter of legality. They failed to follow the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"did not see the movie'
I guess you see Chaos when you look at the word and the sky , I see an amazingly well orchestrated event. From the air that I breath, to the gravity that holds me to the ground, to the moon that sucks up most of the meteors that head our way, and a planet (Jupiter) that performs much the same function. The blood that carries the nutrients throughout my body, the brain cells that hold more information then any man made computer system and has a faster recall rate. The Atmosphere that protects us from the solar radiation. The weather systems that keep our planet from being a dead wasteland. The ability to communicate with our mouths, and hear the beauty of the sounds around us, I could go on and on but you get the point. Its too well put together to be an accident.
I guess I do not see the pieces all fitting together without some force of design. I also could not face death without thinking of an afterlife. How sad if I were to think that everything we do here is insignificant. There is no reason to aspire to anything beyond survival until your lucky day arrives and you no longer need to face another insignificant day.
As far as Yoko Ono, giver her some money if that is what makes her feel better. The production company probably should have used a different song, or asked her to use it.
I wonder if every one that utters "Beuller... Beuller" contacts Ben Stein or the studio that owns the rights to that movie?
I amazed that this thread has gone on so far about such a small amount of material.
To sum it up... I sleep better at night knowing that there is something higher then me keeping things together. If you sleep better thinking you are the top of the ladder when it comes to running the universe, then so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "did not see th emovie'
Sorry, that is in the main-stream dictionary only. Although I support your alternative viewpoint and whatever dictionary you may use.
PS.
Not really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "did not see th emovie'
It is not a scientist's job to speculate wither god exists. It's not our job to wonder why. It's our job to wonder how. We find models that consistently achieve the observed results. We build new kinds of mathamatics to help us do this. If we have faith, (Which many, many, many of us do) we keep it to ourselves because we do not want to compromise our own objectivity.
Science is not about proving or disproving the existence of god. Intelligent design is just evolution with someone saying 'god did it'. Evolution is a fact. Wither or not god did it is an opinion. Scientists are not paid for opinions.
'why' is usualy either 'god did it' or 'luck did it'. So quit mixing why with how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
waaaa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hey
Aint that cool? I think so.
What a funny outcome of evolution.
I wonder what these (creationists) started out as...
... ok, I'm gonna go with "HILLBILLIES for $100!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hey
And it must be true.
Cause the goverment would not let them print it if it was not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hey
Which came first the t-rex or the egg (or chicken)? Maybe the t-rex is similar in genes to the chicken, but they cannot possibly be related.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hey
If the genes are 'similar' then yes, indeed the creatures are related. Have you never heard of distantly related organisms? Take a few of the species of saber tooth cats, and African tigers of today. Genetically similar and related, tho distantly. The same goes for woolly mammoths and elephants.
Birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs, and the partial genetic samples we've been able to find from dino remains shows a strong link.
Study your genetics a little better before spouting off, mmm'kay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hey
ID simply says that scientific evidence suggest an intelligent designer. While most of its proponents come from a Judaeo-Christian background (or so it seems to me); it says little about the identity of the designer or his/her/its nature that is not observable.
Redneck - about the only group of people in the United States who will actually work (other than immigrants).
So I guess I don't find that word in the least bit offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank you to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank you to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Off Topic
That said.....
The movie is about the TREATMENT of creationists and even some tolerant Evolutionists by the "scientific" community.
These are the ones that take their THEORIES to be FACT - and are OFTEN disproved or flabbergasted by observations in nature.
For instance - our entire concept of the cosmos is going to be tipped on it's head soon. The Universe is electric. (thunderbolts.info) and the "scientific" community has tried (because of pride) to suppress or basically "ignore" the facts of the observations.
At any rate - back to fair use....
The Movie's expose of critics of Creation is it's main point... and the scientific community would like to "image...no religion too"... so I think it fits. Fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off Topic
Listen, scientists know what theyre doing. If they didnt, we would all be throwing our feces at each other. Give the scientists a break, they do this stuff for knowlege,not as a pissing contest. Though R Dawkins certainly makes it out to be just that...
BTW, that one guy that they said got fired for his views. He wasnt fired, his contract wasnt renewed because he published articles that werent properly peer reviewed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Off Topic
Scientists know what they are doing? Okay, whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off Topic
Scientific theories are unlike theories of everyday man.
Theories are guess in our regular usage but in science, they are supported by mountain of evidences.
When something is a scientific theory, it is nothing to scoff at. You're looking at trying to prove facts wrong. That's very hard to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Off Topic
think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Off Topic
Why the universe need god or somehow a superior being to exists?
And how science can prove the existence of higher beings? Science can only study that we puny human beings can detect.
Can't we say the universe just exist?
I am sorry to say my imagination and thinking doesn't extend much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof
He also notes in interviews that someone that doesn't "believe" in Darwinism is often not allowed free speech. It will interesting be interesting to see how this blog entry's discussion does, or doesn't, support his point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proof
The repeted use of "darwinism" by creationists to describe anything that isn't creationism is just further proof that they put very little actual research into what they claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Christians to start downloading music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh? What does religion have to do with anything? And, you fail to note that my position remains constant on this. I'm siding with the movie makers, even if I disagree with the content of the film. Or did you not read that far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that is the problem. This is the 'argument' that is often used to refute the theory of evolution, but it is simply not so. Evolution supporters have no pretense of knowing where life comes from, because noone does at this point. But, if you believe in god, then you can certainly believe you know that too.
'having an opinion that does not support the mainstream cannot and will not be tolerated' This is also false. Science is not about dividing opinions into right and wrong ones, nor does it have anything to do with opinions at all. Simply put, it has to do with what makes sense. What can be proven in a rational way using causal relations between factors, AKA 'scientific reasoning' or 'scientific method'. This is what an intelligent human being should be using to study the world around him. Humor me, roadiebob, try using the scientific method to prove creationism. And 'I said so' doesn't constitute a cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
why don't you try using the scientific method to prove creationism wrong.
I need to make this clear...
I am not a creationist, nor do I discount creationists views.
There are a few facts that are irrefutable.
First, there is nothing absoultely "known".
Second, evidence and facts are deemed so by people, which are undisputably fallible.
Third, testing scientific theories means that they are using information deemed as "known" against information not in posession.
It takes as much faith to believe in a big bang theory as it does to believe in intelligent design. Both can prove or disprove each other.
Again, who's to say that all of the scientific theories aren't what the "creator" used to create. Perhaps we are just stumbling on what the "creator" already knows and someday we will be the one's creating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jman594
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jman594
This issue is driven more by politics than it is by theory. You know both sides.
Left = anti-religion, anti-creation, seperation of church and state...
Right = more accepting to other ideas than those of the elite, not pushing for the elimination of religion, realizes that the founding fathers "created" a government based on religious principals of freedom and God given rights for all men (minus those of blacks at the time, hey, this was acceptable at the time, we weren't there)...
I'm not a bible thumper, but I am on the right (like you didn't notice). I haven't seen the movie, and frankly, I don't care to. This will be an issue until the left removes all traces of religion from this country.
What I find funny is that everyone who says that they have a christian belif is automatically labeled as a redneck or hick. I suppose that the two candidates on the dem ticket are too since they both profess their christian beliefs. One to the point of political suicide. Why doesn't someone ask them their stand on creationism and darwinism. (which I seem to think can co-exsist)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I point you all to the founder of The Weather Channel John Coleman's dissertation on Global warming:
http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf
This proves the fact that anyone who doesn't follow suit with the mainstream alarmists gets their views pushed under the rug. The news media only reports one side of most issues. Just like the world running out of fossil fuels, the housing crisis (
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wanted you to see...
"These scientists know that if they do research and the results are in no way
alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do
research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and,
very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use to be determined
I don't think anyone has the right to think that they can use someone's work to make another product to sell and expect that this issue wouldn't come up. Usually people would ask permission and find another way to express the same point if turned down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In actuality, it's:
Creation + Evolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is interesting
Most of the comments here have come down to the (boring and tired) "debate" of creationism vs evolution.
As I said, your interpretation is rather interesting. It's as if you are deliberately attempting to be victimised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
huh?
I support Ono on this, hope she sues the pants off these idiots.
-----------------
whats your point again? I think I missed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People use religion as an excuse to kill (amazing concept)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People use religion as an excuse to kill (amazing concept)"
People use lack of religion as an excuse to kill (amazing concept).
There, fixed it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just thought I would help you both out. Seeing as how ever since there has been a "god" people have killed in his name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
sorry about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re-align: Trish.
"This is also false. Science is not about dividing opinions into right and wrong ones, nor does it have anything to do with opinions at all. Simply put, it has to do with what makes sense."
That may be true of Science, Trish, but certainly not of Politics. It is the politicians who are driving the content of this film (and thread). To attempt to stay in power they try to push ideas they don't agree with out of the mainstream. Hence, the movie, the use of the song, and the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ur a stoopid retarted moranic looser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So tell me.....
And as far as fair use goes... Mr. Lennon wrote and performed "Imagine", and it is well within his estates writes to give or take away permission on its use. And if you don't ask permission, then you don't get to use it. If you don't agree, just try creating something, lets say you created a peace aggreement that stopped a war between to nations, only to have it taken and used by another nation as a base for fratricide, just because they think it fits! Just because you THINK fair use fits or does'nt fit is in the eye of the beholder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So tell me.....
Er, except when it comes to legally defined fair use. The whole point of fair use is that such uses are *not* within his estate's rights to take away permission on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So tell me.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comments made by Mike:
Sure. Any controversial movie does. What you're failing to mention is that it's also recieved a ton of good press and "scored an impressive $3.2 million in its opening weekend, more than all but eight other movies." (http://digg.com/movies/Expelled_propelled_to_box_office_top_10)
Making it sound like the movie has only recieved negative press is not the (mostly) balanced view I've up to this point enjoyed from Techdirt.
As you haven't seen the movie, perhaps you don't understand that it's not about the scientific method. It's about how the academic and scientific communities restrict and block those who delve into areas that are not (for lack of a better word) "popular".
This has been true for many years. Look at today, much research on what might be termed "global cooling" is ignored or shuffled off to the side...despite the fact that global cooling was a "known fact" ten years ago (just like global warming was supressed back then). Research into cheap alternatives to name brand drugs, same thing. There's many different examples that could be used (and some of which that I've seen on this site).
I've seen the movie, and to get back to the topic at hand Expelled used several lines from John Lennon's song "Imagine" (two if I recall correctly).
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
The point they were making was that by forcibly stripping "religion" out of the scientific and academic communities, you were limiting what people could and could not explore (in the context of the movie, you could explore whether life was created on the backs of crystals, or aliens, but not by a "higher power", whether that be Krishna, God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster).
The main part of the movie was to point out that freedom to choose what you researched...whether it be wrong or right...whether it made sense or not...was being restricted.
Oh, and in my opinion, definatly fair use, especially since it's styled as a documentary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Goodly Christian Thoughts...
Here's the real deal -- baby Jesus made everything, and so God owns the copyright to everything. I mean, Jesus does. I mean, his daddy, God. I mean, God is Jesus... Christ, I'm confused now. Jesus is his own father? No, wait... God made Jesus to save everyone from God's wrath... or something.
Everything came from nothing, as in the Big Bang Theory, which works, by the way, perfectly with these statements:
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.
And Jesus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Goodly Christian Thoughts...
actually it would be more along the lines of Anarchism, as he is also speaking about the abolishment of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ono it's the Mr Bil Show
I like the thought of Intelligent design, otherwise, I would have a superiority complex, knowing that I am so much smarter than you undeveloped life forms wanting to call yourselves human. You are about 300,000 years behind me!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ono it's the Mr Bil Show
And btw, I thought the believers in intelligent design thought the earth was only a couple of thousand years old? (no where near 300,000.) You can't even get your make-believe facts right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ono it's the Mr Bil Show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ono it's the Mr Bil Show
actually I think you mean "underdeveloped" not "undeveloped".
you sure are smart though... too bad you can't spell. "braid that GOD gave you" ??? I didn't know he was a hair stylist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ono it's the Mr Bil Show
Well, then a brain surgeon is certainly more intelligent then you. All the brain surgeons I know agree that evolution is a fact. Except the ones who believe that evolution is a fact, but it was guided by the deity of their choice.
And don't let me get started on what the biologists believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: So what do YOU think the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting over?
Its like asking what Africans fight over.
A: Anything that pisses them off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lying POS pseudo-docementary
None of the prof's in the "documentary" lost their position because of their views on ID ...
Alan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your a looser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anything that makes the liberals mad
In the US where blacks that say whitey is bad, become professors. And muslins who say kill Christians become professors. And where someone who says maybe God is involved in day to day life, get fired.
So I see this is a great thing. ;-)
Push the liberals buttons!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHA
HAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to get myself heard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
killling the name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why did they waste their time?
Why did they bother to waste money, time, and their reputation against something that has been scientifically and mathematically proven such as evolution. It's only a "theory" because it happens on such a large time scale that you can't observe it in one lifetime. Plenty of other "theories" are more-so-than-not solid fact, especially with dealing with space phenomenons.
So, these idiots decide to toss years of scientific research out of the window stating that it can't be proven (usually having understood the concept all wrong to begin with), and instead decide to blindly follow a book that has absolutely no foundation other than it self-proclaiming that "God said so".
I should write a book about nonsense and contradicting stories, hide it in a cave somewhere in an air-tight box, and in 2000 years some idiot will find it and it'll become a religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is Fair Use? And don't tell me the Law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is Fair Use? And don't tell me the Law!
Yikes. Fair use over content, an infinite good, is quite different than taking away someone's property (a scarce, rivalrous good). To compare the two does nothing to help this conversation.
Fair use is defined in the law. You claimed that it was not.
You are incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is Fair Use? And don't tell me the Law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not whether you support
It was appropriated to make a point (and to make money). How can Ben think he's entitled to use art owned by others to make a point - or to make money - without licensing it? Would he object if you embedded a clip of his show in a movie without licensing it?
Fair use might apply if the movie were commenting on the song, or the Beatles, or some such. In this case the movie appropriates the song as a potent cultural shorthand - and for that you need permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naming names
*mumbles* bunch of goobers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accident
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accident
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm... I thought Fair Use has to do with...
But I'd like to point out that, no matter what the law says, if a big company used a song clip created by two kids from Podunk, America that was posted on YouTube in the background of a movie, I think everyone would be upset that they weren't paid for the usage and would be on thier side.
Just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, people. This is supposed to be a thread about fair use. Not about God and Jesus and Ben frickin' Stein.
It's pretty annoying to those of us who actually have comments and would like to read comments about fair use. Not God or Jesus or Ben frickin' Stein.
Go argue about it here, http://www.amazon.com/tag/religion/forum?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx417AUXOWKSRN&cdThread=TxN5 E3BNT507Z4 instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
most comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Councilman?
Wow. You scare me more than most, especially since you're a town leader. It appears that you think we are pushing the law of "Fair Use" beyond it's limits, and if we keep pushing this Fair Use, we'll go too far.
That's entirely backwards. For about 400,000 years of human existence, there was no such thing as copyright, trademark, or patents. Then in the past blip of time, society has greatly expanded intellectual property laws - whether you think that's for the better or the worse. That means in the past two centuries, a massive reduction in what constitutes Fair Use.
And in this most recent decade, it's the IP laws and the aggressive push for increased ownership of ideas that is getting stretched beyond the scope of the word of law, the constitution, and the intent of the Fathers of the Republic.
Fair Use is a layman's pitifully small right to craft a joke, make a parody, show a clip, quote a work, backup a video. Fair Use is not being stretched beyond it's original scope, much to the contrary, it is under perpetual attack.
Let the movie take snippets from songs, but not the entire song, since that's the law of the day. That stands whether you like the movie or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Councilman?
Fundamentally, use of a published work can be fair (in the true sense of the word) even if it involves making unauthorised copies or derivatives.
Unfairness only tends to occur when people make misrepresentations of others or misattribute each others' work.
If the use of Imagine misrepresents John Lennon as endorsing something he did not, such as creationism, then the use is unfair.
As long as the use does not impair truth then it is a fair use.
Of course, despite being a fair use, it may still infringe someone's copyright, but that infringement doesn't constitute unfairness, merely a contravention of someone's anachronistic and intrinsically unfair privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe trademark law is a better fit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use?
Based upon the information contained in the linked article, it appears that Ms. Ono does present a relatively strong case for both copyright infringement and common law unfair competition. Even a cursory review of just the fair use factors used by the courts demonstrates why the defendants will likely find themselves in a precarious legal position. For example, the first fair use factor includes whether or not a use is for profit or not for profit. News reports say this movie is being shown at theaters throughout the country and seems to be doing quite well. There goes the first shoe to drop, with others to follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Use?
Commentary and criticism is a legitimate fair use defense, and the moviemakers claim they're using the song not for the song, but for commentary purposes.
As for the four factor test, it's rather misleading to point to just the profit one. You know as well as I do that this isn't a check box test, but that you use the four factors to get a general sense of whether or not something is fair use. The fact that it's used in a for profit venture does not, by itself, exclude it from being fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair Use?
"17 USC § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
Over and above the statute itself is a long legislative history attached to the statute and going into extensive detail on what Congress intended by the above language. For example, classroom use by teachers and the application of fair use to such classroom use is very lengthy.
Of course, relevant case law is extensive, the opinions typically quite long, and replete with "legalese" that assumes the reader is intimately familiar with the vagaries of copyright law and the fair use exception replicated above.
Based upon my experience as an attorney dealing with this area of law, it is my view that by and large each of the above factors tend to favor the plaintiff. The use is commercial and for profit, the nature of the work is music with lyrics and score (as opposed to a general publication that one would ordinarily expect would be quoted in part), the use entails approximately 13% of the work (a number far in excess of what even classroom uses are permitted to find safe harbor under Section 107), and the association of the work with the subject of the movie is likely to be viewed as a significant derogation of the value of the work.
Note that I also mentioned common law unfair competition. Numerous other legal doctrines come into play beyond merely copyright and trademark law, but I would have to read the actual complaint filed with the court to try and assess their number and scope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free. After all, 'imagine all the people sharing all the world … You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You haven't seen the movie ...
You sound more gullible than the aforementioned rednecks.
Are you writing for intelligent people? Like those commenters above who are making requests for the idiotic suit to succeed simply because it would further their own dogmatic views?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, Rose M. Welch
Mike Masnick started it with a gratuitous display of his feelings about the movie's merits (not based on his own experience) when discussing the copyright case's merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Yoko BS
Also, I don't like your 'singing'
http://digg.com/celebrity/Yoko_suing_Lennon_Murphy_for_being_named_Lennon_and_signging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Yoko BS
Read or Die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Yoko BS
No. She wasn't suing. She was protesting someone else who was trying to trademark the name.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080214/163305.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting
Anyway, I'm going to agree with post #92.
I may be cynical, but what if the producers (or Ben Stein himself) *purposely* didn't bother with obtaining clearance for the music. Maybe they thought they were covered by "fair use" (and maybe they legally are)... or maybe they gambled that any lawsuits would bring them more attention.
Do they use any other songs in the movie? Did they get clearances for those songs?
Realistically, what will happen? Everyone goes to court, if the producers are found guilty then they pay a fee, and they might remove the song from the DVD release. Yet the lawsuit may bring in more than enough business to cover any legal fees or punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Scientific Method
Neither the evolution hypothesis (back when I was in college a "theory" was something that was proved by the scientific method) nor the intelligent design hypothesis can be proved by the scientific method, which is as follows.
1. Define the problem. Identify one question you want answered.
2. Come up with a possible answer (hypothesis) to your question.
3. Create an experiment that will provide an answer to your question.
4. Perform the test for the hypothesis.
5. Perform the test several more times to see if the results are the same each time.
6. Form your conclusion based on the test results.
Neither intelligent design nor evolution have been tested nor reproduced successfully.
One thing scientists are doing is trying to show evidence of their hypotheses with the fossil record. (that is not the "scientific method") The problem with this method is a firm believer of intelligent design can look at a set of bones and come to one conclusion, and a firm believer in evolution can see something totally different. But neither one can "prove" they are correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Scientific Method
Ever heard of new species forming? We already saw it either in experiment or nature.
And we did predicts some species with evolution.
Can intelligent design predicts anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atheists Are United in Fascism
By the time Expelled leaves the theaters, there is a chance that it will be in the "top" 20 documentaries of all time, at the box office, in spite of all the bad press reveiws from atheistic/anti-Christian sources. The atheists will whine about that for years.
Evolution hasn't ever been observed... in the fossil record, in nature, or in the lab. Microevolution (variations) isn't evolution. You need macroevolution, which is voodoo science, created in someone's mind.
The evolution fairy tale will be quickly exposed as the greatest lie/joke of all time, once scientists and professors are allowed to give their evidences and opinions in schools and universities without the fear of getting ostracized and fired for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atheists Are United in Fascism
By the time Expelled leaves the theaters, there is a chance that it will be in the "top" 20 documentaries of all time, at the box office, in spite of all the bad press reveiws from atheistic/anti-Christian sources. The atheists will whine about that for years.
Evolution hasn't ever been observed... in the fossil record, in nature, or in the lab. Microevolution (variations) isn't evolution. You need macroevolution, which is voodoo science, created in someone's mind.
The evolution fairy tale will be quickly exposed as the greatest lie/joke of all time, once scientists and professors are allowed to give their evidences and opinions in schools and universities without the fear of getting ostracized and fired for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Atheists Are United in Fascism
Anyway if the design was at all intelligent, then I have some SERIOUS complaints to god about how the human brain was wired. I mean, I know the traits of hating all people who are different/outsiders was useful back in the heyday of evolution, but since we were designed by a higher purpouse, you'd think S/He would edit something like that out, no?
I don't believe Internet design because I refuse to believe in a god that is a sadist, or a god who actually makes people have evolutionary urgers to ostracize otherwise productive members of society just because one fairly small thing about them is very different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
By the way, is English your second language? Just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft and money
Because many people commit theft today by downloading recordings of performances of works that were created by others, doesn't change the fact that those people who download commit theft.
Because it's easy to make a copy of anything that can be recorded digitally, doesn't change that what is being committed is an act of theft.
Our laws say that you can't commit theft. Until the law is changed by us, those who download are nothing more than thieves.
Look in the mirror: You're probably a thief. If you're not religious and you're a thief, you are the product of poor upbringing because you're taking someone else's property. If you're religious and you're thief, you ought to examine what you really believe because you're a pile of contradiction.
Theft of digitally recorded works is rampant today, but that doesn't imply that the makers of the film had a legal right to use the song.
If any of that is confusing, don't worry; it's really very simple: Copyright is all about money, who gets to keep it, how expensive it is to break that law, and how difficult it is to enforce that law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stein gets away with theft..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use clause
it was designed for consumers so they can buy a cd or dvd and make a freaking copy of it and not go to jail or be fined for pirating.
let me repeat: "CONSUMERS"; if you make 100,000 copies of the cd and start selling it, guess what, you get fined $100,000.
remember that little message at the beginning of movies about showing it and charging admission....it's a big fine; you can't do it because you dont own the damn movie.
well, Fair use dont apply to Film Makers who use your music in their film and put it out for millions of people to come see and pay you $10 to get in the theatre.
EMI publishing is who brought the lawsuit against the creationist crooks. you want to guess why? because they own part of the rights to lennon's songs. that's the way it works as a songwriter, you have to give up a % of your rights to the publishing company. typically 50/50 deal but you get better deal if you are successful artist.
yoko will win the case even if it has to go to the supreme court...she will win....these assholes broke the law. arrogant dicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]