Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1988), p. 161.
What should a scientist think about religion?
Development, medicine, and evolution of the neck and shoulder
The Cambrian as an evolutionary exemplar
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Ground your irony meters before reading | Main | Oh, well, that's all right then. »
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 23, 2008 3:24 PM, by PZ Myers
Uh-oh. They pissed off Yoko Ono.
Yoko Ono, son, Sean Ono Lennon, and Julian Lennon, John Lennon's son from his first marriage, along with privately held publisher EMI Blackwood Music Inc filed suit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan seeking to bar the filmmakers and their distributors from continuing to use "Imagine" in the movie.
They are also seeking unspecified damages.
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
after all, i'm forever in your debt...
Posted by: kid bitzer | April 23, 2008 3:27 PM
For once, I'm on Yoko's side. I hope she puts them all in the poor house.
Posted by: Kirk | April 23, 2008 3:31 PM
I suppose if you use a song in a movie without getting proper permission, you're an idiot, and you deserve to get sued.
Sure, Yoko Ono is a pig, but still.
Posted by: Darrell | April 23, 2008 3:32 PM
Awesome. Now I can go to lunch happy.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | April 23, 2008 3:32 PM
Crap. Does this mean they may cancel showings? I have been putting it off...
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | April 23, 2008 3:33 PM
Brian Flemming predicted this would happen on his last blogpost. (Sorry, no link. I'm on my mobular.)
Posted by: The Science Pundit | April 23, 2008 3:34 PM
Can someone please explain the reason for the widespread hostility toward Yoko Ono? I've never understood it.
Posted by: SC | April 23, 2008 3:37 PM
I a little surprised, actually. I had heard about the use of "Imagine" in the film before I saw it and was under the impression that the sample used was much longer than it turned out to be. From seeing the movie, I thought the excerpt would count as "fair use". (Not that I'm supporting the lying liars who lie constantly that made this film in any real way.)
Posted by: DBE | April 23, 2008 3:37 PM
Yoko Ono is like a hedgehog because...
Posted by: Stephen Wells | April 23, 2008 3:38 PM
The length of the sample isn't actually the main issue in "fair use". It's the purpose of using any sample at all which is key - viz it has to be for educational / research, critique / reporting or parody of that item (and not just to spruce up some otherwise dull material about something entirely different).
Posted by: SEF | April 23, 2008 3:43 PM
Wow. This is the first time I feel grateful towards that bitch....
Posted by: Michelle | April 23, 2008 3:43 PM
IM: It's unclear to me from the Reuters article whether the plaintiffs (Oko, Lennons) are seeking an injunction (court order) seeking to stop the film from being shown. If so, the injunction would probably only be binding in the Eastern District of NY.
The longer the film is shown, and the more revenues it produces, the larger the potential award ("unspecified damages").
Bottom line: Schweet!
Disclaimer: IANAL, TANTBTALA, consult your attorney, etc.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | April 23, 2008 3:43 PM
Can someone please explain the reason for the widespread hostility toward Yoko Ono? I've never understood it.
"Hey, that chick broke up the Beatles, MAAAANNNN!"
Plus she's Asian. That doesn't help.
Posted by: George Cauldron | April 23, 2008 3:44 PM
Prediction: they'll use the Kent Hovind defense ;)
Posted by: Brando | April 23, 2008 3:44 PM
...a wizard's staff has a knob on the end?
"The dream is over."
Posted by: Ken Cope | April 23, 2008 3:46 PM
SC wrote:
Not me. I've always kind of liked her and her conceptual art.
Could it be that people are still upset because they think she broke up the Beatles? Well... I like what John did without the Beatles.
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 23, 2008 3:47 PM
@#7: She's a creepy hippie asian, what else?
...As for the breaking the beatles up part... I secretly thank her for it. Overrated stuff.
Posted by: Michelle | April 23, 2008 3:47 PM
Ok, all malicious falsehood and ignorance brought forth by the producers of Expelled aside...
Documentary or not, not securing synch rights for music tracks in your productions is nigh-unto the most ri-goddamn-diculously stupid thing you can do as a filmmaker. ESPECIALLY with a song such as Imagine, and an artist such as John Lennon.
It's definitely a "what the hell were they thinking?" moment, but as others have pointed out, it's almost like they violated copyright law on purpose, for the exposure. It's like they're saying, "Go on, dare us, just dare us to do it... We'll do it... Just dare me--OOPS we did it! What are you going to do now? Eh? EH!?"
Posted by: Damon B. | April 23, 2008 3:47 PM
Re: #7 -- because some people blame Yoko for the Beatles breaking up. Once John found Yoko, he seemed more interested in being with her than with being with the Beatles. That's my understanding.
Posted by: Gene | April 23, 2008 3:47 PM
But if there are no possessions, how can there be any intellectual property rights?
Posted by: me | April 23, 2008 3:48 PM
re: "Can someone please explain the reason for the widespread hostility toward Yoko Ono? I've never understood it."
1. Some consider her a talentless groupie partially or completely responsible for breaking up the Beatles. She certainly broke up John's first marriage.
2. Produced weird recordings consisting of repeated nonsense and/or inhuman screeching in addition to her "conceptual art" avante-garde performances.
Posted by: Kevin Dorner | April 23, 2008 3:48 PM
I'm surprised that would use Imagine which has lyrics like "No religion too.. "..
Wonder what context that number was ensconced in.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | April 23, 2008 3:49 PM
Can't wait for the headline: Yoko wins Ben Stein's money.
Posted by: Emmanuel_Goldstein | April 23, 2008 3:49 PM
How do they use Imagine in the movie? Such and atheistic song seems like an very odd choice.
Posted by: Bob L | April 23, 2008 3:50 PM
There's someone who can force out every cent those assholes owe to her.
I only hope that some of the others can squeeze money out of those thieves.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 23, 2008 3:52 PM
Wow, god must be pretty pissed about this movie, huh? Or, wait, maybe it's just a test of faith. Yeah yeah, that's it. Test of faith.
Posted by: Leena | April 23, 2008 3:52 PM
This is right up there with Ronald Reagan's campaign using "Born in the USA". Duuuuudes, how about paying attention to the lyrics once in a while!
Posted by: Ray C. | April 23, 2008 3:52 PM
re: "I'm surprised that would use Imagine which has lyrics like "No religion too.. " Wonder what context that number was ensconced in."
"Christianity isn't a religion... it's a relationship!"
Posted by: Kevin Dorner | April 23, 2008 3:52 PM
#24, I think they use it as the background music for their Holocaust clips.
Posted by: Ericb | April 23, 2008 3:54 PM
The reports are that they are trying to be ironic, playing the song while bleak and destroyed landscapes (Nazi footage?) are shown on camera.
Like everything else, they completely lack any nuances that would make it work artistically, though as propaganda to the naive it may play well.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 23, 2008 3:55 PM
Nah, using the song period fits in with not securing rights. These guys are amateurs; there are scruffy students with cheapo hand held DV camcorders who're more professional than these nitwits....
Posted by: gwangung | April 23, 2008 3:57 PM
Good on Yoko.
Posted by: Matt | April 23, 2008 3:57 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 23, 2008 3:57 PM
Oh, this is going to be good...
I can see how they might have been able to weasel their way out of an XVIVO lawsuit, but I don't see how the best lawyers in the world could get them out of this pickle.
Might have to go so Expelled tonight, though, in case they cancel future showings....
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 23, 2008 3:57 PM
No no no, it's those evil atheists being used by Satan to fight the truth of ID.
What's the matter with you, don't you have a proper understanding of the evils of atheism?
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 23, 2008 3:58 PM
I keep thinking that, regardless of how bad the movie, suing the Expelled crew like this is not a great idea. If they seriously claim that creationists have been silenced, then this kind of behavior will only lend them credibility. Realistically, it's not about that, but so far, Ben Stein and his crew have twisted just about every other bit of reality to suit them, and I suspect this would be no different.
Posted by: Anna | April 23, 2008 3:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yXgLGix6v4
(fast-forward to 2:15)
"(Stein): Dr Myers would like you to think he's being original, but he's merely lifting a page out of John Lennon's songbook."
Then they play the two lines, with subtitles, while showing pictures of Stalin: "...nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too." It's as if they are expecting the audience to be SHOCKED! at the words to one of the most popular and loved songs of all time.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | April 23, 2008 3:59 PM
I agree with Norman Doering. She's a good artist. She and John Lennon together made good art. And I never cared particularly for the...uh, never mind.
Posted by: SC | April 23, 2008 3:59 PM
This is so ironic I don't even know what to say.
Posted by: Alex | April 23, 2008 3:59 PM
Expelled is on its Magical Misery Tour. I'll tell you why nobody likes her music! *
One of my favorite documents is a track off the Playground Psychotics CD, titled "A Small Eternity with Yoko Ono" which both Zappa and Lennon left off of their initial records of the time they performed together in New York, with special contributions by Flo and Eddie, in response to Yoko Ono's performance with microphone inside a burlap bag, writhing and vocalizing.
"Imagine" is the ringtone on my phone. I am proud to have paid Yoko, through many intermediaries, for that privilege.
* Warning: Lord Privy Seal alert!
Posted by: Ken Cope | April 23, 2008 4:02 PM
I thought the song had been edited out of the release version (after bloggers started complaining about Yoko approving the use of the song and Yoko circulated a letter stating her disapproval in response), and now the song is only in promotioner trailers that are still circulating.
Posted by: hibob | April 23, 2008 4:02 PM
A Perfect Circle's cover of "Imagine" sounds like it would have been more appropriate in that propoganda flick (with it's key change to minor chords, etc.).
And I bet if the movie's producers had chosen that cover, they would have used it without permission too.
Posted by: Pleco | April 23, 2008 4:02 PM
I feel kinda conflicted about this. Not because I have any particular animosity towards Yoko, you understand — I wasn't alive when the Beatles broke up. What bothers me is the following:
1. I appreciate every opportunity to demonstrate that the makers of Expelled, and professional creationists in general, suffer from a disease of the moral organs. When people aren't eager to hear technical details and scientific evidence, we have to engage them on an emotional level, and one way to do that — with integrity, I believe — is to appeal to their moral sense.
2. However, I think the creative world would benefit from a broad interpretation of Fair Use and looser restrictions on reusing material. We'd be better off, artistically, if "Imagine" had been licensed under Creative Commons — we'd have to deal with all sorts of irritations, 90% of all "Imagine" edits and remixes would be crud, etc., but we've found diamonds in worse rough than that.
My personal judgment tends to lean heavily on the "commercial use" part of the Fair Use criteria. A three-minute remix of a song made for entertainment with no eye to financial gain is less problematic than fifteen seconds appropriated for profit.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 23, 2008 4:02 PM
The version I heard was it's played to photage of Communist Chinese atrocities. IANAL, but I imagine they'll claim fair use on account of being criticism.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | April 23, 2008 4:04 PM
About why she's hated for breaking up the Beatles...
I loved The Beatles, although I never really discovered their music until I was in college around 1980. But I think their breakup happened at just the right time. I would really hate to see them continue on and put out crap music past their prime.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | April 23, 2008 4:05 PM
What's with the anti-asian racism in comments about Yoko Ono? Was I mistaken in thinking a blog that promotes clarity of thought might be the last place to find gutter-level bigotry?
Posted by: beagledad | April 23, 2008 4:06 PM
Is there ANYTHING in that movie they didn't rip off from somewhere else? They got their interviews dishonestly, they stole (excuse me, COPIED) that animation, they used this song without permission...just more evidence that creationists can't produce anything new, whether science or anything else.
Posted by: Susan B. | April 23, 2008 4:06 PM
Glen, you ARE evil.
Why? Because I read your comment while taking a sip of seltzer. I laughed, spit seltzer all over my keyboard, and bubbles went shooting up my nose.
But no, really, atheists really are horrible. Ben Stein says so -- it must be true.
Posted by: Leena | April 23, 2008 4:06 PM
dammit, multiple xpost. Ignore what I said and watch the clip instead!
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | April 23, 2008 4:06 PM
I'm at once giddy as hell beacuse this will bankrupt the Expelled people both morally and financially, but it may give them more media attention than they deserve. It hardly made a ripple in the news otherwise.
And to the people saying they're torn over fair use. Fair use is protected so that truthful and well-thought out documentaries need not go bakrupt in licensing fees, not for outright slander and lies.
Posted by: Reginald | April 23, 2008 4:07 PM
I can understand why Yoko Ono would not want John Lennon's music associated with christian scum. Especially not the anti-religion song "Imagine".
Posted by: BobC | April 23, 2008 4:08 PM
(shakes head)
IDiots indeed...
Posted by: DH | April 23, 2008 4:14 PM
Next the Smithsonian'll be coming after them for ganking (thanks, commenter on a previous thread!) the stock knitting footage.
Posted by: SC | April 23, 2008 4:15 PM
My above link to the youtube video with the John Lennon parody from an old National Lampoon recording has a delightful back story.
Posted by: Ken Cope | April 23, 2008 4:16 PM
Yeah, when you consider it's bankrolled by Ruloff, the elementary failure to dot the i's and cross the t's on permissions is even more bizarre--if anyone ought to know about playing IP hardball and due diligence against the possibility, you'd think a Microsoft retiree and his lawyers would.
Posted by: thalarctos | April 23, 2008 4:16 PM
Wait, so who hasn;t sued them yet?
Posted by: Pwnagepanda | April 23, 2008 4:16 PM
In a few days they'll announce this is another attempt of Big Science trying to suppress their film.
Posted by: Geral | April 23, 2008 4:17 PM
I swore that all would taste the fruits of my atheism, when they would not bow down to my trinity of Darwin, Dawkins, and Gould.
This is just the beginning, for next time it shall be red wine.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 23, 2008 4:17 PM
Reginald (#50):
And will a ruling in Yoko's favor this time endanger that protection, making life more difficult for future honest documentaries? I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but it seems plausible. Will the courts judge the honesty and truthfulness of every such documentary, to see if they meet the "Yoko Test"? Are they even competent to do so?
I'd love to see Premise Media and Ass-Prod Mathis get a bloodletting. They're oleaginous creatures of fetid sleaze. I'm hoping that they suffer some righteous consequences — that for sowing the wind, they reap a fucking typhoon.
But while hoping for the best, shouldn't we be planning for the worst?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 23, 2008 4:17 PM
Hello, Troll. Nice try on scoring points, but let's take a look at the actual comment:
Can someone please explain the reason for the widespread hostility toward Yoko Ono? I've never understood it."Hey, that chick broke up the Beatles, MAAAANNNN!"
Plus she's Asian. That doesn't help.
George Cauldron was being part sarcastic, and part observational. George was not voicing a racist opinion but merely pointing out that for a lot of people out there, the fact that she is Asian influences their opinion of her.
Ok, now that I've doused the troll, please, no one feed it.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | April 23, 2008 4:18 PM
@35 Glen Davidson --
In fact, 'Satan' comes from the hebrew word for Adversary; the meaning of this is often taken as referring to the role of the prosecuting attorney in adversarial justice systems (such as the one we have in the US).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#As_the_.22accuser.22
Coincidence? I think not.....
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 23, 2008 4:20 PM
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | April 23, 2008 4:20 PM
I really don't have any opinion of Yoko Ono as a person. She seems to be behind some good causes, but really, I just don't hear enough about her to be able to say whether I like her or not.
Now, the fact that she's suing these criminals behind this film moves her into the list of people I think nicely about.
Not sure if that makes sense. I've got a head full of pain meds. But, I think if you're going to hate someone, you probably should have one or two good reasons, shouldn't you?
Posted by: Dan | April 23, 2008 4:25 PM
Mind @ #60:
So "creepy hippie Asian" (#17) isn't racist? You don't get away with racism by pretending it's a joke or by taking a cute ironical stance.
Posted by: beagledad | April 23, 2008 4:32 PM
@ Ken Cope, #40:
I initially misread that as Pharyngula Psychotics CD...
Alas, my hopes were dashed on re-reading it...
-Rusty
Posted by: minusRusty | April 23, 2008 4:37 PM
After watching just 2 mins of that movie in the clip linked to in #37, I know for a fact that I will never sit through the full 90+ minutes of that film.
Posted by: zer0 | April 23, 2008 4:38 PM
If someone called me a creepy hippie South Asian, I wouldn't consider it racist. I might be a little peeved at being called a hippie, though. My 2 cents.
Posted by: Leena | April 23, 2008 4:38 PM
Here's the link.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | April 23, 2008 4:46 PM
This is petty, and to get on the "anything to slam Expelled" bandwagon is childish and doesn't do the cause of science any good. Besides, I doubt there's any chance of this suit getting anywhere.
Posted by: pzph | April 23, 2008 4:46 PM
Well, it was Ben Stein's money...
FWIW, while Yoko certainly was a catalyst who sped the breakup of the Beatles, John would have eventually done so anyway.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 23, 2008 4:47 PM
How is it petty? They stole. They try and say they are the big moral cookies in the jar yet they show over and over they aren't.
Pointing and laughing at hypocrisy is justified.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 23, 2008 4:51 PM
Okay, if we're going to give people a pass on racism, could we please not refer to Yoko Ono in such misogynistic terms, please? So far, we've had commenters call her a "pig" and a "bitch" (anybody who wants to make an issue out of the sexism of those terms needs their heads read) and someone else said she was like "a hedgehog because..." which reads an awful lot to me like that sexist "pincushion" joke. Yes, I am having a "humourless feminist" moment. Lick me.
Me, I don't like her because I basically think she's famous for being famous, and that she was an artistically-talentless hack to start with. (She apparently has many talents, including being a very good businessperson, but art? IMNSHO, not so much.)
Posted by: Interrobang | April 23, 2008 4:53 PM
"Can't wait for the headline: Yoko wins Ben Stein's money."
Gold, absolute gold my friend!
Posted by: Liam | April 23, 2008 4:53 PM
Yoko Ono broke up the Beatles. That alone would be reason enough to like her. Plus, one may not like her art, but it is certainly interesting. Plus, John Lennon loved her, and he was one cool guy, so that counts in her favor. Plus, she is suing the dirtbags that made Expelled. That settles it. I will vote for her in the presidential election.
Posted by: Gregory Earl | April 23, 2008 4:55 PM
I keep thinking that, regardless of how bad the movie, suing the Expelled crew like this is not a great idea.
Yeah, I guess we should just let them steal whatever they want. That is the alternative, the only alternative, to suing them at this point. Sure, some people will take the thieves' side, and they'll pat themselves on the back for being good Christians while they do so, but really, is a fear of hypocrites doing that worth letting them steal whatever they want? Would you not protect your property if they stole it?
Posted by: QrazyQat | April 23, 2008 4:55 PM
pzph, no one in their wildest dreams would have believed the makers of Expelled would be so stupid as to blatantly violate the copyright of a VERY famous song. Let me assure you, Ben Stein would have better odds jumping in a tank of sharks at this point, because the law is entirely on Yoko Ono's side and she is definitely not afraid to use it.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 23, 2008 4:56 PM
Q: What's yellow and feeds off beatles?
A: Argiope aurantia
PS. KRISTINE IS TEH WITCH, BUY DENYSE O LEARY'S BOOK, SEE THE NEW TREE OF LIFE:
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2884/familytreeve9.jpg
Posted by: Rich | April 23, 2008 4:58 PM
Brian Flemming sez:
The footnote leads to the following:
OK. So, if any one of a large number of songs could be used for the same effect, then I don't think the Expelled producers can claim fair use under the criticism/parody aspect. Question: which other famous rock songs could be used in the same way?
"Jesus died for somebody's sins. . . but not mine. . . ."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 23, 2008 4:58 PM
Well, let's just say a judge decides that Expelled's producers must split the profits between Yoko and XVIVO.
That leads to an interesting question: What profits?
Their opening revenues were revised downward in the last 24 hours. This thing is losing money big-time.
I had to go to the UCD blog to find out what they had to say about that, and you know what they're claiming? Theatre-hopping atheists. No, I'm not making that up.
If the movie was as popular as they'd expected, there would not have been any seats left in theatres for theatre-hopping. Right now, this thing is showing in nearly deserted theatres.
Sarah Marshall is really a better movie.
Posted by: MikeM | April 23, 2008 5:01 PM
Newtopia was fairly impressive, in my view, as political art. But you know what they say about taste.
Posted by: SC | April 23, 2008 5:04 PM
I do not see what leg Yoko Ono has to stand on. The message of the song is clearly being criticized in the movie, (and that for no more than 15 seconds, as I just counted it on YouTube). This seems to count under "Fair Use".
It is possible that Yoko just wants to deter anyone else from using her song without permission, even if she has no case at all (she can afford to pay for her lawyers' fees, and those of her opposition, if called upon to do so). It is possible she just wants to distance herself from the mesage of the movie. But the arguments do not seem to favour her at all. criticizing the ideas of a song ought to count as Fair Use.
Posted by: Hugh Slaman | April 23, 2008 5:04 PM
The context you provide may not be appropriate. Apparently, you have not read the sacred texts by which the innertubes are properly parsed.
The only reason to use the word "hedgehog" is to invoke Terry Pratchett's Discworld, and one of its most famous denizens, Nanny Ogg, one of the Witches, one who is neither a Maiden, nor a--"well, we don't like to say around Esme." One of her two favorite drinking songs involves the hedgehog, the other is about the wizard's staff (as you could tell, I replied in a proper "call and response" manner upon recognizing the reference).
Here are the first three lyrics to the Hedgehog Song:
1.
You can bugger the bear, if you do it with care,
in the winter, when he is asleep in his lair,
Though I would not advise it in spring or in fall--
but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all.
2.
If you're feeling quite coarse, you can bugger the horse,
or the palfrey, the jennet, the stallion (with force),
You can bugger the donkey, the mare, or the mule,
Though to bugger the pony is needlessly cruel.
3.
You can bugger the ox (if you stand on a box)
And vulpologists say you can bugger the fox,
You can bugger the shrew, though it's awfully small--
but the hedgehog cvan never be buggered at all.
Stephen Wells could have just said something like, "Yoko is someone you don't want to fuck with," invoking Frank Zappa's Billy the Mountain, but Discworld is less obscure.
Posted by: Ken Cope | April 23, 2008 5:06 PM
I can't help but quote Mr. Frank Vincent Zappa when thinking about the key stone cops bumbling nature of the Expelled and DI folks.
and by disco I mean the Disco institute
and
Man i wish they had used a Zappa song.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 23, 2008 5:08 PM
#60 I agree with you, George Cauldron was simply answering the question by stating the facts as they were back then. Even among women in this area Yoko was hated, her race was almost always remarked on.
Posted by: Patricia C. | April 23, 2008 5:09 PM
I don't think the amount matters to Yoko so much. It's the legal standing of the Expelled folks as thieves that matters. That and the "we won't stand for this type of shit" message it sends.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 23, 2008 5:12 PM
I think this suit has a tremendous chance of going very, very far. Last I checked, both Yoko Ono and EMI have considerable resources upon which to draw, and the criminals behind Expelled have yet to break even.
As for the rest of your whimpering, blubbering concern, if you can't tell the difference between what is right and what is wrong, and if would like to allow those criminals who have broken the law to go unpunished for their thievery, then I sincerely question whether or not you are even a good person.
Posted by: Dan | April 23, 2008 5:12 PM
1. She helped break up the Beetles.
2. I've never understood her conceptual art. It is almost like the Emperor's New Clothes. Is it invisible to the hoi poloi or is it just nonexistent?
3. She doesn't have a warm fuzzy personality that is obvious anyway.
I doubt the Asian hippie chick thing has much to do with it. You are expecting an avante garde artist to be a fundie WASP?
This is one time where being a tough bitch will be worthwhile.
Posted by: raven | April 23, 2008 5:15 PM
Dan,
Fair Use, baby, Fair Use.....
Posted by: Hugh Slaman | April 23, 2008 5:16 PM
That's nothing.
John Hamilton saw this one coming when John Lennon was still trying to imagine some of the people.
Posted by: jeff | April 23, 2008 5:28 PM
I haven't watched/listened to any of the clips, so apologies if this is a silly question, but... Who is the singer? Band? I'm guessing, but wouldn't they or whoever it is who owns the rights the performance used/stolen also have a claim?
Changing gears...
According to this article, the Excruciating scumbags have admitted the theft:
That particular article, from an "entertainment magazine" called PASTE, is of unclear reliability. It refers to a Wall Street Journal article (that I do not have full access to). Both(?) articles are about the previous flap when some people incorrectly assumed Yoko et al. had granted teh scumbags a license.
Posted by: blf | April 23, 2008 5:31 PM
Russell Blackford has a good argument for considering the use of Imagine in Expelled to constitute fair use.
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | April 23, 2008 5:32 PM
Beatles biographer Hunter Davies referring to the Lennon interview for Rolling Stone confirms that the other three Beatles hated Yoko:
As for the squeals of fair use, hurled like crucifixes before the ravening gaze of a red-eyed Christopher Lee in Dracula drag, the proper response from Yoko and her attorneys is "use it or lose it." Imagine is kind of like the crown jewel of the Lennon estate, and neither Yoko's nor EMI's attorneys would permit its appropriation without a legal challenge, any more than Da Mouse would permit me to post 25% of Snow White on youtube. Copyright can be lost if it is not protected.
Go Yoko!
Posted by: Ken Cope | April 23, 2008 5:33 PM
Wow! Those creo's are powerful. Expelled is still sporting a solid B at Yahoo movies. At least if it makes money the money will get redistributed.
Posted by: Kay | April 23, 2008 5:49 PM
Ken @92: You're confusing copyright and trademark. Trademarks can be lost if they aren't defended; you can choose to defend your copyright or not, it has no effect your retention of the copyright.
Posted by: NelC | April 23, 2008 5:56 PM