I'll drink to that. I'm no fan of Absolute Copyright m'self, but it definitely crosses the line into ripoff when you try to make money from it... and if they're not trying to make money from the film, they're ultimately trying to make money for their cause... after all, that's what fundie religion is about, money and power. (There is religion that isn't. Thank $APPROPRIATE.)
I'm no fan of absolute copyright, but I still think this falls within the bounds of reason. I know I'd be furious if the fundies stole any of my work to lend credence to some piece of creationist propaganda. I'd hope my family would respect my views enough to sue for me if I were dead at the time.
If we lived in a world without absolute copyright, people would know not to assume that the reuse of an artistic work implies the cooperation or assent of its creator (or rights-holder). This is not really about how much Yoko Ono ought to have been paid, it's just as much about reputation.
I imagine a world in which the makers of Expelled couldn't necessarily be prevented from using the song, but could be forced to add a disclaimer indicating that their reuse of it was unauthorized, or even "hostile". The footage from the Harvard video of cellular mechanisms would still be under copyright even in my world, but if it weren't, it would definitely get a "hostile" sticker.
See, there's lots of wrongs you can do with someone else's creative work, and we should distinguish copyright infringement, which in the most general sense is a sort of trespass, from plagiarism and misrepresentation, which combine something like libel with something like fraud.
Well, the Harvard cell video would arguably be plagiarism but I can't see how _Imagine_ could be passed off as their own work. On the other hand, that shouldn't let them off the hook--that would be tantamount to saying "go ahead and plagiarize; if we catch you it doesn't count by definition, because the work was so well known you couldn't pass it off as yours."
I think you're right that the issue as far as Yoko is concerned may be reputation more than money; she doesn't want John's good name mixed up with these people. And current copyright law being what it is, she has to take steps to make it plain this was done without her permission.
I haven't seen the film to know how much of the song is used, but IIRC if it's less than seven seconds, they can legally use it. If so, as much as I sympathize with Yoko, if she were to win it'd screw others of us who just want to use less-than-seven-seconds of a cut for neutral purposes (such as in a news story on the radio).
If, however, it's more than seven seconds, it's an open-and-shut case and she wins.
The Wall Street Journal (subscription link; the relevant portion shows up on a Google News search for: "Yoko Ono" seconds) quotes a spokeswoman for the production as saying that "under 25 seconds" were used. That would seem to imply at least 20 seconds, or else it wouldn't have been phrased that way.
It wasn't until following your link that I knew Ben Stein had anything to do with it.
Do you know if he was bamboozled like some of the other participants, or is he actually promoting the creationist claptrap on purpose?
I'd always found him entertaining, and really enjoyed his trivia game show for a while. Learning that he's a creationist would be like learning Kirstie Alley is a scientologist; i.e., it would make me feel somehow dirty for enjoying their work.
(And I know that's an irrational feeling that borders on bigotry, but I have some pretty strong feelings against the higher-ups who promote creationism and scientology, and it's hard to separate those feelings from someone's unrelated works.)
Researching it a bit, it looks like Ben was a big part of the production and knew what kind of film he was making.
While I agree that anti-Semitism is abhorrent, and I know that Ben's been rightfully outspoken about it, the reviews make it sound like he was somehow using this film as a soapbox for that cause. That's just so mind-boggling. How could anyone do something like that?
Bascially, he reduces the serious subject of anti-Semitism to cheap theatrics (e.g. this sentence from Richard Dawkins' review: "He visits Dachau and, when informed by the guide that lots of Jews had been killed there, he buries his face in his hands as though this is the first time he has heard of it.")
I haven't seen the film, nor do I plan to give these people my money.
That said, I *have* watched the trailer, and I have read reviews and comments on the film, and I'm afraid it sounds to me like he must have been participating with full knowledge of the nature of the film, unlike some of the hapless interviewees.
I have no problem with him thinking anti-Semitism is abhorrent; I think so too. Where I have a problem, is with him claiming that the theory of Evolution is responsible for the Holocaust.
I have no explanation for how he could do something like that--at least, none that is consistent with good will and integrity.
FWIW, his other works on other subjects may still be worthwhile; it's not like you have to turn around and hate them now. :-7
As it pains me to defend the fundies, I would be a hypocrite if I approved of this suit. Unless I'm misinformed, they are not using the song to boost the aesthetic appeal of the film, they are using it as an example and making commentary about it. Just because I don't like them does not mean they're not allowed to have the opinion and make the argument that "Imagine" advances an atheist message. Criticism is at the very core of the concept of fair use, and if fair use only applies to commentary we approve of, then fair use is meaningless. So all we have left to stand on is the technicality of whether they used too long a clip, and frankly, the notion that one can't use more than 7 seconds of a song when one wants to criticise the content of the lyrics is pretty bogus. The only reason they could possibly actually talk about "Imagine" based on a 7 second clip is that it's part of the culture and everyone would know what they're referring to anyway.
It's in fact much less honest to claim fair use for a quote so short that it could easily be misinterpreted than an unedited quote of a longer passage. What if some fundie freak tried to argue that your "Acts of Creation" was presenting a message that the people who create are evil. Would it be more defensible as fair use if they quoted just the words "You can tell it on the mountain, in the valley far below, but you needn't tell the craftsmen", leaving the person who didn't know the song with no information but their claim that the thought was that the craftsmen weren't worthy of being told -- or would it be better if they quoted the whole chorus so the real message was clear?
Seven seconds might be the law, but it's a stupid law.
I don't know what they're using it for--perhaps they *are* only quoting it to comment on it. And perhaps that comment *does* in some way bear on the subject of the film--their false claim that people who "question Darwinism" are unfairly persecuted. I'm having trouble imagining how that could be, but perhaps I'm just not sufficiently imaginative.
If the other comments here are correct, I'm apparently misinformed. Or just delusional. I thought I'd heard, in other discussions about how "Imagine" was in this film, that they were treating it as a serious atheist message, and then making an actual verbal argument against the song.
First of all, thanks for your most intelligent comment so far on this blog. I find it funny that so many can have an opinion about an issue they don't seem to know anything about. Here's one of the many articles available: http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/24/people.yoko.ono.ap/index.html This is a quote from the article: "Based on the fair use doctrine, news commentators and film documentarians regularly use material in the same way we do," Premise Media said in a statement. "Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the 'Imagine' clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry." The very fact that the topic of the film is controversial to what John Lennon would believe is the only reason I can see why Ono would be doing this. The irony is that she is basing her argument on a fallacious premise that the film is using the song as if it supports their ideas against Darwinism. They are merely pointing out an idea about society and the reflection this song has on it. Unless you call describing someones view of the world as being defamatory, there is nothing out of context with the use of this song. Ono's lawsuit is ridiculous. I can't help but hope that she wins. It will only prove the point that the film is trying to make, when it comes to censorship, everything but religion (more specifically that religion and science are incompatible) should have the right to exercise freedom of speech and thought regardless of any verifiable conclusions (or not, for that matter).
Oh, look! A real live Creationist! This is my first--wow, I wonder how it got here.
Nobody with any knowledge of Premise Media's previous behavior (lying to scientists to get interviews, stealing Harvard's video "The Inner Life of the Cell," lying about when they changed the name of the movie from Crossroads to Expelled, equating Biologists with Nazis, to pick just a few examples) would take their unsupported word for anything.
If the court rules it was fair use, it was fair use. Given Premise Media's past behavior, it doesn't seem likely, but we'll see.
And if and when Premise Media loses, it won't be because American courts are hostile to religion (if anything they are hostile to secularism). It will be because Premise Media was genuinely in the wrong.
Wow, presumptuous statement you have made here. Is this how you critically evaluate your ideas about this debate? I never said anything that would lead anyone to conclude I am a Creationist. I merely stated I hoped it would create the controversy enough to cause people to see the film. You assume that this statement is a support for the film in that I have an affinity for what it talks about. People should make judgments based on the facts, my point being that so many on this blog are developing opinions about a film I am almost willing to bet they have never seen. Second hand information is always inferior to seeing it for yourself. At best, second hand information would match seeing it for yourself, but can be misleading if that information has a biased twist to it. So, before you go making assumptions about what I believe in and don't believe in, maybe you should do a little research on the facts first about what I do believe in. At any rate, I will agree with your statement that only the courts will tell about the outcome of this case. I still don't understand this insistent "she will win", you haven't even discussed anything that definitively shows they were wrong. I guess when the court is done with the case we will know.
Why do I think you're a Creationist (excuse me--"Intelligent Design proponent")?
Because people who have genuinely not made up their minds on the issue yet, don't care enough about it to Google for random small-potatoes blogs to spam about it.
Why do I think your comment is spam?
A) Because the link you kindly gave us so we could educate ourselves about your side of the issue is precisely the same document I linked to in the first place. If you'd actually read my post, you wouldn't have made that mistake.
B) Because you don't care enough about the comment to even let us know who you are.
Why do I feel free to comment on the movie without seeing it?
Because, like anyone who isn't made of time or money, I read the reviews to see what might be worth going to. I grant you there aren't many reviews of Expelled--screenings have, for some reason, been closed to real reviewers (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/media/10stein.html?_r=2&scp=4&sq=moore&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). As one reviewer points out, that means the movie's own producers think it is a dog (http://www.sltrib.com/features/ci_8903065?source=email). If a kid's own mamma thinks he's ugly and mean, why would I want to spend any time with him? If a movie's own producers think it's a dog, why would I think any different?
Plus it's not even entertaining. (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html)
Wow, even Fox News didn't like it. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html) I think my favorite part of that review is:
Directed by one Nathan Frankowski, "Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein, who’s carved out a career selling eye drops in commercials and amusing us on sitcoms, is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck.
Though a very telling part is this:
What the producers of this film would love, love, love is a controversy.
Because, of course, that's the only thing left that could possibly make this pitiful dog of a film interesting.
If Creationists (oh, excuse me, "Intelligent design proponents") have to fan the flames of that last-ditch "controversy" by driving a widow to court to try to protect her husband's good name, they're okay with that.
My speculation is that Yoko's lawyers found out about Expelled's countersuit against XVIVO's infringement of copy right suit that you reported on here:
and realized that sitting back in neutrality was not going to work. One way or another, Yoko would have been dragged in to the court and the press brouhahas, and she decided that she'd rather be against the movie than yoked into their camp.
I don't know, but I had the impression that a blogger had noticed the song was playing during part of the movie, had assumed it was done with Yoko's permission, and had posted about it, blasting her for "selling out." Apparently she found out about the post, and this was the first she heard of Expelled using the song, and she filed suit promptly thereafter. I think the countersuit timing may be a coincidence.
But I could be wrong.
Given the choice of being with or against these people, I know which one *I* would prefer.
For the record, it's reported that the song is used as soundtrack to some exceptionally bleak scenery. The intention is to suggest that a world without religion would be a wasteland. This isn't even remotely fair use; it's the use of the recording to create a derivative work, and for that permission is needed.
Ah, I see. If I understand correctly, you would propose a system in which hostile use would be marked, so people watching the film would understand that this was not how the original writer would have intended the material to be taken?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 09:31 pm (UTC)I imagine a world in which the makers of Expelled couldn't necessarily be prevented from using the song, but could be forced to add a disclaimer indicating that their reuse of it was unauthorized, or even "hostile". The footage from the Harvard video of cellular mechanisms would still be under copyright even in my world, but if it weren't, it would definitely get a "hostile" sticker.
See, there's lots of wrongs you can do with someone else's creative work, and we should distinguish copyright infringement, which in the most general sense is a sort of trespass, from plagiarism and misrepresentation, which combine something like libel with something like fraud.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 03:21 am (UTC)I think you're right that the issue as far as Yoko is concerned may be reputation more than money; she doesn't want John's good name mixed up with these people. And current copyright law being what it is, she has to take steps to make it plain this was done without her permission.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 08:09 pm (UTC)If, however, it's more than seven seconds, it's an open-and-shut case and she wins.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 03:16 am (UTC)I hope she *does* win.
Apparently their copy of the Harvard video has already been yanked. This film is getting shorter all the time.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 09:28 pm (UTC)It wasn't until following your link that I knew Ben Stein had anything to do with it.
Do you know if he was bamboozled like some of the other participants, or is he actually promoting the creationist claptrap on purpose?
I'd always found him entertaining, and really enjoyed his trivia game show for a while. Learning that he's a creationist would be like learning Kirstie Alley is a scientologist; i.e., it would make me feel somehow dirty for enjoying their work.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 10:21 pm (UTC)While I agree that anti-Semitism is abhorrent, and I know that Ben's been rightfully outspoken about it, the reviews make it sound like he was somehow using this film as a soapbox for that cause. That's just so mind-boggling. How could anyone do something like that?
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 10:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 03:07 am (UTC)That said, I *have* watched the trailer, and I have read reviews and comments on the film, and I'm afraid it sounds to me like he must have been participating with full knowledge of the nature of the film, unlike some of the hapless interviewees.
I have no problem with him thinking anti-Semitism is abhorrent; I think so too. Where I have a problem, is with him claiming that the theory of Evolution is responsible for the Holocaust.
I have no explanation for how he could do something like that--at least, none that is consistent with good will and integrity.
FWIW, his other works on other subjects may still be worthwhile; it's not like you have to turn around and hate them now. :-7
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 09:46 pm (UTC)It's in fact much less honest to claim fair use for a quote so short that it could easily be misinterpreted than an unedited quote of a longer passage. What if some fundie freak tried to argue that your "Acts of Creation" was presenting a message that the people who create are evil. Would it be more defensible as fair use if they quoted just the words "You can tell it on the mountain, in the valley far below, but you needn't tell the craftsmen", leaving the person who didn't know the song with no information but their claim that the thought was that the craftsmen weren't worthy of being told -- or would it be better if they quoted the whole chorus so the real message was clear?
Seven seconds might be the law, but it's a stupid law.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 08:32 pm (UTC)Use of "Imagine"
Date: 2008-04-29 08:18 pm (UTC)Here's one of the many articles available:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/24/people.yoko.ono.ap/index.html
This is a quote from the article:
"Based on the fair use doctrine, news commentators and film documentarians regularly use material in the same way we do," Premise Media said in a statement. "Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the 'Imagine' clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry."
The very fact that the topic of the film is controversial to what John Lennon would believe is the only reason I can see why Ono would be doing this. The irony is that she is basing her argument on a fallacious premise that the film is using the song as if it supports their ideas against Darwinism. They are merely pointing out an idea about society and the reflection this song has on it. Unless you call describing someones view of the world as being defamatory, there is nothing out of context with the use of this song. Ono's lawsuit is ridiculous. I can't help but hope that she wins. It will only prove the point that the film is trying to make, when it comes to censorship, everything but religion (more specifically that religion and science are incompatible) should have the right to exercise freedom of speech and thought regardless of any verifiable conclusions (or not, for that matter).
Re: Use of "Imagine"
Date: 2008-04-29 10:09 pm (UTC)Nobody with any knowledge of Premise Media's previous behavior (lying to scientists to get interviews, stealing Harvard's video "The Inner Life of the Cell," lying about when they changed the name of the movie from Crossroads to Expelled, equating Biologists with Nazis, to pick just a few examples) would take their unsupported word for anything.
If the court rules it was fair use, it was fair use. Given Premise Media's past behavior, it doesn't seem likely, but we'll see.
And if and when Premise Media loses, it won't be because American courts are hostile to religion (if anything they are hostile to secularism). It will be because Premise Media was genuinely in the wrong.
Again.
Re: Use of "Imagine"
Date: 2008-05-01 08:07 am (UTC)At any rate, I will agree with your statement that only the courts will tell about the outcome of this case. I still don't understand this insistent "she will win", you haven't even discussed anything that definitively shows they were wrong. I guess when the court is done with the case we will know.
Re: Use of "Imagine"
Date: 2008-05-01 05:17 pm (UTC)Because people who have genuinely not made up their minds on the issue yet, don't care enough about it to Google for random small-potatoes blogs to spam about it.
Why do I think your comment is spam?
A) Because the link you kindly gave us so we could educate ourselves about your side of the issue is precisely the same document I linked to in the first place. If you'd actually read my post, you wouldn't have made that mistake.
B) Because you don't care enough about the comment to even let us know who you are.
Why do I feel free to comment on the movie without seeing it?
Because, like anyone who isn't made of time or money, I read the reviews to see what might be worth going to. I grant you there aren't many reviews of Expelled--screenings have, for some reason, been closed to real reviewers (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/media/10stein.html?_r=2&scp=4&sq=moore&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). As one reviewer points out, that means the movie's own producers think it is a dog (http://www.sltrib.com/features/ci_8903065?source=email). If a kid's own mamma thinks he's ugly and mean, why would I want to spend any time with him? If a movie's own producers think it's a dog, why would I think any different?
Plus it's not even entertaining. (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html)
Wow, even Fox News didn't like it. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html) I think my favorite part of that review is:
Though a very telling part is this:
Because, of course, that's the only thing left that could possibly make this pitiful dog of a film interesting.
If Creationists (oh, excuse me, "Intelligent design proponents") have to fan the flames of that last-ditch "controversy" by driving a widow to court to try to protect her husband's good name, they're okay with that.
Me, not so much.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 11:19 pm (UTC)http://catsittingstill.livejournal.com/71564.html
and realized that sitting back in neutrality was not going to work. One way or another, Yoko would have been dragged in to the court and the press brouhahas, and she decided that she'd rather be against the movie than yoked into their camp.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 03:15 am (UTC)But I could be wrong.
Given the choice of being with or against these people, I know which one *I* would prefer.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 05:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 11:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-29 07:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-26 12:32 am (UTC)