Imagine there's no Expelled : Stranger Fruit

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Who am I?

John M. Lynch is an Honors Faculty Fellow at Barrett the Honors College at Arizona State University. He's also affiliated with ASU's Center for Biology & Society. When he's not an historian of anti-evolutionism, he's an evolutionary morphologist. Much to his surprise, in 2007 he was named the Arizona Professor of the Year. No doubt his students were surprised as well.

Search

Social Networking

Currently Reading

Always Reading

Non-Sbs I have met

hpb etc. Rob Skipper
The Intersection Chris Mooney
Lippardblog Jim Lippard
Ragesoss Sage Ross
Systematics & Biogeography Malte Ebach & David Williams
Time to Eat the Dogs Michael Robinson
Unscrewing the Inscrutable Brent Rasmussen
Warning! PhD in Progress Jessica Joganic

Fighting the Good Fight

Panda's Thumb The source for information on evolutionary biology and anti-evolutionism.
Sunbeams from Cucumbers Steve Reuland.
De Rerum Natura Reed Cartwright.
Austringer Wes Elsberry.
Astroblog Ian Musgrave.
Thoughts in a Haystack John Pieret edits the Talk Origins Quote Mine project.
Playing Chess with Pigeons Troy Britain is a talk.origins regular.

Other Stuff

featured in openlab 2007
View My Openlab Entry

View My Openlab Entry

« Nazi Eugenics Version 2.0 | Main | Darwinian Nerdgasm »

Imagine there's no Expelled

Posted on: April 16, 2008 11:31 PM, by John Lynch

I’ve been sitting on this for an hour because, frankly, I can’t stop laughing quietly to myself. As Andrea over at the Thumb notes, the producers of Expelled are now in trouble with Yoko Ono for using Lennon’s "Imagine" without permission. Seriously. I’m not making this up. First it was plagiarism from, not one, but two sources, now it’s ripping off the Lennon estate. These guys are going to need to hire some damned good lawyers.

Find more posts in:

Humanities & Social Science

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/69754

Comments

Every single person involved in ID is a mole, secretly working for the other side. Phillip Johnson started things to lure idiots out of the woodwork so he could laugh at them, but the ones who came out were closet evolutionists, hoping to sneak in at the ground floor and make sure the movement never got any traction.

It's the only thing that makes sense, even if it sounds like the plot to a lame comedy.

Posted by: pough | April 17, 2008 12:06 AM

Also sounds like stories of multiple federal agencies all introducing moles into some potentially dangerous organization and ending up being the majority of the group.

The other off beat theory going around is that they want to be sued so they can say, "See, see this is how Big Science muzzles the truth."

How such buffoons can be treated as credible by such a large segment of the population just amazes.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | April 17, 2008 12:40 AM

"Imagine there's no Expelled."

You just made my day with that title. Thank you.

Posted by: Etha Williams | April 17, 2008 1:05 AM

I actually side with the "Expelled" producers on this one, if it's really less than 25 seconds of the song. Current case law says any sample of 1.5 seconds or more requires a license, which is absurd.

Posted by: Jim Lippard | April 17, 2008 1:26 AM

@ Jim

I agree with you philosophically, but as you point out over at your place, it should count as fair use but the court has already decided it does not. Thus, the producers are still legally at fault (despite how we would want to change the law) and their legal "advice" is in error.

Posted by: John Lynch | April 17, 2008 1:48 AM

What would put the cherry on top of the Expelled Sundae is if they get the Thomas More Law Center to defend them. The Thomas More folks, after all, did a sterling job in Dover, PA.

Oh. Wait. Hm.

Posted by: RBH | April 17, 2008 3:39 AM

A poster at Abie Smith's ERV blog says that the stolen cell video and Imagine clip are NOT in the final theater product.

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/04/premise-lawsuits-toddler-animations-and.html

However, the producers can STILL be sued for using the stolen video and Lenon song in advertising (which the early showings were).

In the big picture, it looks like they won't be able to be sued and closed down, but they might be able to be sued for the early showings. And of course, they are still dishonest charlatans preaching to the "faithful", and nothing will change that.

Posted by: J-Dog | April 17, 2008 9:03 AM

I agree that a 25 sec clip should be able to be blocked by an artist ....that's long enough to be featured in an ad for anything.

Posted by: BAllanJ | April 17, 2008 9:14 AM

J-Dog: I don't see any conclusive evidence that they've substituted video from "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" (the video Dembski substituted for the XVIVO film in his lectures after getting a cease and desist notice), but I think that's a reasonable speculation. I guess we'll find out in the next week or so.

BAllanJ: I think 25 seconds could be infringing (such as in the example you describe), but also could be fair use.

I think this is fair use. (Fourth video down is a version of "Imagine" which includes samples.)

John: Well, in the 6th Circuit, anyway. I think they made the wrong decision, though. "Fair use" still exists in statute...

Posted by: Jim Lippard | April 17, 2008 10:50 AM

Re: last: Oh, I see, it's a new YouTube video posted by "getexpelled" on April 15, that is not derived from the XVIVO footage. (Perhaps not from "Unlocking," either.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4Abz0t_yf4

If that's the footage they bring forth in court in Texas and use in the film, they'll win a declaratory judgment, even though they will actually have complied with one of XVIVO's key demands (don't use our film or footage derived from it in your movie).

In other words, another deception. But I guess that's what J-Dog already said in #7, I'm caught up now...

Posted by: Jim Lippard | April 17, 2008 10:57 AM

I suspect that there are not going to be any copyright infringements in the theatrical release of this propaganda film, and that they never planned there to be. The material in the pre-release showings was to create a buzz (the debatable 'no such thing as bad publicity' concept), and they are hoping that they wont be liable for it because they were private screenings. I guess it comes down to whether or not they can be considered as adverts for the film.

Then I remember Hanlon's Razor.

Posted by: MH | April 17, 2008 11:47 AM

Russell Blackford defends the moral case for "Expelled"'s use of excerpts from "Imagine" here.

Posted by: Jim Lippard | April 17, 2008 11:32 PM