EMI Loses Lawsuit To Prevent John Lennon's Imagine From Appearing In Expelled
from the good-decision dept
Larry Lessig points us to news of another good court decision, tossing out EMI's attempt to stop Ben Stein's movie Expelled from using John Lennon's song Imagine. If this sounds somewhat familiar, it's because Yoko Ono had filed a similar lawsuit -- which she lost. In both cases, the courts have recognized that Stein's use of the song is pretty clearly fair use. As the link above points out, this is important for a variety of reasons -- including a terrible ruling a few years back that said effectively that there was no fair use for music samples. It's good to see courts recognizing that fair use applies to music as well as other types of content.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, expelled, fair use, imagine, john lennon, music
Companies: emi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Shouldn't have bothered...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shouldn't have bothered...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shouldn't have bothered...
If you were saying about me saying they shouldn't have bothered suing then the point I was making was that it was only playing into their hands - they wanted to be sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Trouble With Intelligent Design...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Designer
Sheesh! If you're going to dispute ID, at least argue about its real weaknesses, not mindlessly repeat a trite bumper-sticker slogan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Designer
Lawrence D'Oliveiro is exactly right in his question - there is no real answer to this (except nowhere - he/she/it doesn't exist).
Lawrence Gage, that is a real weakness, also ID claims to be science not theology or philosophy (though that is actually what it is). Scientifically it has no basis and D'Oliveiro just destroyed it's argument on the theology/philosophy standpoint so I think we're done here.
If you want to teach ID in religious studies class then fine - it would be nice if you would point out that it is totally unsupported but you don't have to about the rest of religious studies so I wouldn't require it of ID in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shouldn't have bothered...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shouldn't have bothered...
Of course I don't quite understand how the take Imagine as a non-deist argument. If you have to Imagine there isn't one there must be one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shouldn't have bothered...
I thought he was clear. They were leveraging an expected lawsuit into publicity for this silly movie.
That was what I meant to say, I didn't mean to get into a debate about the contents of the movie. I should have just said that to make it clear I was talking about the merits of the lawsuit and made no comments of the movie itself...
I also probably should have made this post earlier as well while people would still read it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C'mon. Go the distance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: C'mon. Go the distance.
I repeat I DO NOT support what is presented in that ridiculous film "Expelled".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: C'mon. Go the distance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I shoulda known
Next time I'll remind myself that "Imagine" might stimulate imagination.
[ 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 ]
I dont get Ben Stien
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I dont get Ben Stien
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One post
The point is, whether you like the film or not, the courts are actually doing the right thing. From previous posts, I know even Mike didn't like the ideas presented in the film but has shown support for the use of the song sample as fair use. Now the courts have backed it up on two accounts. This should be celebrated by all who want freedom to play Prince in the background while their child dances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello John, Time to start rolling in the grave.
The song is about peace. Not arguing hot button wedge issues. The song is about people getting along and living in harmony. Not standing on a soapbox preaching their political views. Ben Stein your as sharp as they come. Sorry, bud- you dont know everything. And you really miss the mark by trashing an increading song with your political hit piece.
"Imagine if Ben actually got Imagine!" dare to dream John.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This matter involved a pre-trial motion for a preliminary injunction. The court decided, as it has the discretion to do, not to grant the motion and that trial on the merits would continue.
This litigation is only in the "first inning" and has a long way to go before it concludes...by either a court entered judgement or a settlement between the two parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I daresay few people are aware that "works" created prior to January 1, 1978 may be protected under both federal and state law. On January 1, 1978 continued state copyright grants were truncated by the newly enacted revisions to federal copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They did lose. They asked for an injunction and they did not get it.
Yes, it may have been a colloquialism to say "lawsuit" instead of "pre-trial motion" but the impact is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hehe, yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ironic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]