What were they thinking?

[catsittingstill]

More information on Expelled

Apparently they are using the music of John Lennon without permission.

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.

Apparently they used about 25 seconds of the song, rather than the whole thing.  Maybe that makes it okay, I dunno.

But won't the music industry take them apart?  I mean, isn't that what the music industry *does*? 

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

IIRC they're allowed 12 seconds for Fair Use. And Fair Use doesn't include anything remotely commercial, like making a movie. Doesn't Jacko / Apple Records still own most of that stuff? I know McCartney got a bunch of his stuff back recently, but...

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Oh dear.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of muppets, could it?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I can think of very few people I would be happier to watch the music industry shred for violation of copyright.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I know that Jacko purchased the Beatles catalog, but I don't know if he got the later solo stuff as well, or if it was published on different auspices.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Actually I had the impression that Yoko Ono got to decide who got to use Lennon's songs.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I don't know who owns it, but I got the impression from the original article that Yoko Ono got to decide who could use it.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

I don't believe there's any hard-and-fast rule for fair use, as the idea is that the purpose of the use is significant. The sampling cases certainly seem to set no lower limit. Use as backing music for no other reason, however, is almost certainly no good. If it's as an example of art, as randwolf suggests, I'd say only enough to make the point would be the rule.

Imagine was written post-Beatles, so Yoko retained the copyright.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I think they're using "Imagine" as an example of atheist art, which might be defensible. But it's just one more example of the poor quality of the production. From the reviews (I'm not likely to see it) I have the impression that Expelled is the equivalent of a vanity book; it would never have seen the light of day without rich fanatics to fund the production. Ten years ago the producers would have been in deep trouble. Now, who knows?

[phillip2637.livejournal.com]

I can kind of imagine Rich Fanatic Thieves TTTO Rich Fantasy Lives, but the title really doesn't scan and it's probably not worth the effort. :-)

(Those film clips you used and the song you abused are now destined to come back to haunt you....)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

(Justice intends that your plagarized ends mean your friends all decide they don't want you.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

think they're using "Imagine" as an example of atheist art,

What I've heard of the movie doesn't lead me to think they would willingly attribute anything good to atheism.

My guess is that they're using the version of the song that goes "imagine one religion" rather than the original "imagine no religion."

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Um, I meant bad example.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Like, an example of bad art? I thought Imagine was very popular--if a significant portion of the film-goers like it, I would think it won't work as an example of bad art.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

An example of popular atheism, I would think. Or perhaps an example of Lennon's eeeevil.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

One thing which strikes me about this operation; they are committing fraud on a scale beyond, even, the usual entertainment industry fraud. We're talking outdoing Hollywood for sleaziness, here, which is pretty amazing. Hopefully, this will cost them & their cause much credibility and much money.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Their fraud and intellectual dishonesty has been getting a lot of notice in the sections of the internet where I hang out. I'm hoping it will cost them legally and in the respect of the general public, but that may be too much to hope for.

Apparently they used music from _The Killers_ too; the group had okayed it, and then tried to withdraw permission when they found out what the movie was actually about but it was too late.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

If there was a contract, and it was entered into by fraud, I would be surprised if it would hold up. It sounds to me that, if the aggrieved parties can organize against the producers, they might be able to make their lives very difficult. I gather the film is a thoroughly embarrassing piece of work, though, and persuasive only for the already enthusiastic believer, so I figure it would be best to let it be shown. If it were me I'd try to get a percentage of the revenues of the film--don't let the producers be able to claim they were censored.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

It sounds like it's pretty crappy, but I don't think you get to yank your music from a film just because the film didn't come out well. I would think the Killers would only have a case if, for instance, they'd been told the film was about something completely different--say, a documentary about dolphins or something. Yeah, you could say they were told the film would be about science and it's not, but then you have to prove in court that ID is not science. Which can be done... but I don't know that the Killers can do it. And it's entirely possible the makers of the film didn't tell the Killers what the film would be about at all, in which case the Killers wouldn't have a leg to stand on, legally.

I think the Killers may very well decide to cut their losses.