Home » Constitution, Darwinism, Expelled » Yoko Ono Lawsuit Expelled!

Yoko Ono Lawsuit Expelled!

There may yet be hope for the First Amendment and common sense copyright.
———————-
Yoko Ono Lawsuit Expelled!: Judge Rules in Favor of Expelled Producers; Film To Be Re-Released In Theaters This Summer
(PRWEB) July 17, 2008 — The producers of the controversial film, Expelled, are celebrating their first legal victory in the lawsuit brought against them by Yoko Ono, for including John Lennon’s song Imagine in their documentary. Last month, a federal court in Manhattan denied Ono’s request for an injunction against the film that would have forced it out of theaters nationwide. The producers are celebrating this victory by announcing that the film will be re-released theatrically this summer across the United States.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary exploring one of the nation’s most contentious and longest running battles, the argument over where and how life began, starring author/actor/economist Ben Stein debuted at #10 at the box office but saw its theatrical run marred by the Ono lawsuit. “. . .While we’re thrilled with the film’s having earned nearly $8 million dollars during its first run, we’ve heard from enough people and groups who want to see it in their theaters that we’ve agreed to re-release it-this time without an undeserved cloud over its head.”

Shortly after the film’s release, Ono filed a suit against the film’s producers, Premise Media seeking damages for alleged copyright infringement because the song had not been licensed for use in the film. On May 19, 2008 the parties agreed to a voluntary temporary restraining order while they awaited Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Sydney H. Stein’s ruling on Ono’s motion to enjoin the showing and distribution of the film. The restraining order prevented the producers from making additional copies of the film for distribution. However on June 2 Stein denied the injunction and noted that Premise Media was likely to succeed on its fair use defense. In his decision Stein wrote, “the doctrine provides that the fair use of copyrighted work for purposes of criticism and commentary is not an infringement of copyright.” . . .

The court ruling prevents Ono from interfering with the national re-release of the film this summer and the company has come up with an ambitious plan to make the film available to any group which would like to bring the film to a local theater. Working in conjunction with the film’s distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures, Expelled will be made available to any group of 250-300 people at a cost of low as $6 per ticket.

“We have 1,000 prints ready to be shipped out to any group that would like to bring the movie to their local theater,” noted Premise’s EVP-Sales Tripp Thornton.

For more information or to schedule a screening please contact: Premise Media at (678) 546-5580 or email: Tripp @ premisemedia.com For media inquiries or to schedule an interview please contact: laurakobbs @ gmail.com.
See full article

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

18 Responses to Yoko Ono Lawsuit Expelled!

  1. Just curious…

    It hardly seems fair to the creators of Expelled that it had to be pulled right away! Oh wells, I hope the notoriety will bring more ppl into watch it.

  2. It was not “pulled”: “On May 19, 2008 the parties agreed to a voluntary temporary restraining order” not to distribute further copies until the judicial rulings.

  3. I expect the 1000 prints are the ones created on the initial run of showings.

    I’d say they could double their money, easily, as they don’t have to print more reels.

    Good on em.

  4. DLH, do you think that there is imminent danger of the First Amendment being significantly compromosed by the
    darwinbots, beyond the fact it’s allowing atheism to be taught as fact in biology classrooms?

    And I doubt expelled was materially affected by the ruling, as no new copies needed to be distributed as they already had a large amount out there. Opened in a large amount of places.

    It’s good that the ruling has confirmed common sense copyright however.

  5. Common sense wins.

  6. This time Mats, this time.

    And next time?

    Have you heard of

    http://christianexodus.org/

    While personally I find it a bit extreme, it might come to that by the end.

  7. M.Baldwin
    “do you think that there is imminent danger of the First Amendment being significantly compromosed by the
    darwinbots,”
    The problem is fascist coercion enforcing Darwinism – under threat of loss of livelihood and reputation – in direct breach of the First Amendment and freedom of conscience.

  8. Casey has a good article relating the Altenberg 16.
    You know them boys, right? Those are the guys who went to discuss the non-existing discussion about the neo-darwinian synthes.

    By the way, be careful not to attack neo-darwinism in some so called “conservative blogs”. I was banned from one “conservative” blog for saying that most american medical doctors reject the full blown darwinian theory.

  9. synthes = synthesis

  10. Don’t you think “fascist” is a bit strong, considering what the actual last fascists the world remembers did?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    I believe free elections are still being held?

  11. Hey Mats,
    I can’t click on your links mate, can you try them again? I want to see where and how you were banniated.

  12. Mats,
    Sorry again, but when you say

    “synthes = synthesis”

    What does that mean? Is there some jargon I’m missing?

  13. Oy vey!
    Here are the links:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2....._cont.html

    and..

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....or_th.html

    Hope it works. (Both end with .html)

  14. PWNAGE!!!

  15. Baldwin,
    I mean the neo-darwinian synthesis, which tries to combine mendelian genetics with darwin’s mythology.

  16. Baldwin,
    I was banned from a “conservative” blog, but I would rather leave it unnamed. Apart from his take on the ID vs darwinism controvery, the blog is fairly good. I just lost the ability to put in my two cents on the innumerous posts regarding evolution and the Discovery Institute.

    Reminds me of the book “Darwinian Conservatives: The Misguided Quest”.

  17. 17

    To me, this lawsuit was over when the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. The judge’s ruling denying that motion made a very thorough legal analysis. I don’t see how there was anything to add.

  18. 18

    Does anyone else find it ironic that Yoko Ono was fighting a case for copyright infringement of a song which contains the words “imagine no possessions”?

Leave a Reply