Did Expelled rip off John Lennon’s music? The Killers’?
| April 17, 2008 | Posted by O'Leary under Expelled |
With the Expelled movie set to open across the United States in less than 24 hours, the latest uproar is a claim?/revelation? that the film used John Lennon’s Imagine without permission. Also, some stuff from The Killers.
Here’s the Wall Street Journal (but you must pay for most of it). Update: Here it is on Richard Dawkins’s site in full. Hat tip to Ethan below.
Huff Post columnist James Boyce holds forth here. And here’s a wealth of what may be information. (“Have some potato chips with your salt, for goodness sakes …”)
Tomorrow I will be in a blogger’s teleconference with Ben Stein and have written to ask that he address the accusation and the producers’ response that they only used a little bit of the music.
[(2008 04 18 1:43 EST) Update from the "Oh for Pete's sake" department: The press conference has been cancelled. I phoned the agency, where the person at the desk knows nothing, except that she hasn't heard that the film won't open tonight. So for now I suppose it will. Legal action from the Yoko Own-o empire later, perhaps.
Quite honestly, at this point, I think the only important question re Expelled is whether the people it is intended to reach will go see it. That's all any documentary can ever do. Later, I will write about the curious reviews appearing in legacy media, designed to reassure the materialist faithful that it is lies, all lies. Also, scattered handsful of people will apparently turn out to protest.
If I get time, I would like to write a cultural document about the sort of person who rousts himself out on a Friday night, wearing a tee shirt that demands, "On what day did God make the fossils?" (The day before yesterday, Pootsie, and if you are not buying a ticket, could we stand a little ways away from the booth? ) ]
For now I am wondering whether it was a publicity stunt to force the left blogosphere to write about the film.
You know, the old ad gimmick that if you hear something mentioned often enough, you end up buying it ….
Update April 18, 2008: I just received an e-mail from a correspondent, advising
I saw you discussing this on the article about “Expelled”, so here is what the head administrator over at the official Killers forum has just posted:
“I just spoke to the band’s manager, and adding to the confusion was the fact that they did authorize a project months ago with this request:
Quote:
“The film is a satirical documentary with an estimated running time of 1 hour and 50 minutes, exploring academic freedom in public schools and government institutions with actor, comedian, economist, Ben Stein as the spokesperson.” What they authorized was a documentary about “academic freedom in schools”, not the film that the producers produced.
They contacted the producers of the film to ask that the song be removed but it is too late. Unfortunately it was misrepresented to them when the request came through to use it. Add this band to a long line of people who were misled by the producers of this film.“
Absolutely fascinating! It sounds as though our correspondent does not think that academic freedom applies to those who disagree with her about the evidence from nature for the design of life. Thus the film really “isn’t” about academic freedom in the schools, you see. Academic freedom is freedom to spout the party line at all times and in all places. Remember that, folks.
In any event, if the Expelled team got permission, they got permission, so they are legally in the clear. (Note: Budget line item under expenses: Nuisance lawsuits – $???????)
Also, just up at Access Research Network: A look at Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder’s The Science of God
For the most part Schroeder would get along quite well with the design theorists (and he is in the Expelled film): Here’s why:
Introduction The Science of God – a Jewish physicist considers the design of the universe and life
One thing that struck me about The Science of God: is that Schroeder admits freely and with no sense of angst – back in 1997! – that there is very little evidence for Darwinian evolution as a cause of origin of species. Yet here we are in this 2008-2009 season of ridiculous Darwin hagiography, and on the very eve of the Expelled documentary on the suppression of scientists who favour design as an explanation.
Part One: Is the Darwin cult on the way out?
In fact, Schroeder argues, the real history of life is a guided evolution that occurs as a series of jumps:
“The statement Darwin repeats several times in Origin of Species,”natura non facit saltum” – that nature does not make jumps – is simply false. Transitional forms are totally absent from the fossil record at the basic level of phylum and rare if present at all in class. Only after basic body plans are well established are fossil transitions observed. Darwin would have been much closer to the truth had he written “natura solum facit saltum” – that nature only makes jumps. (page 10)
Indeed, he charges that Darwin knew this perfectly well.
Part Two: Schroeder as recovering multiverse faddist?
While it might be tempting to say that Schroeder “would obviously think this way because he is a devout Jew,” he reveals that, as an MIT alumnus, he was originally on the “adversary’s” team. That is, he had wanted the multiverse to be real, but he found that he couldn’t make it make sense. (p. 25). Instead, “… with each step forward in the unfolding mystery of the cosmos, a subtle yet pervading ingenuity, a contingency kept shining through, a contingency that joins all aspects of existence into a coherent unity. While this coherence does not prove the existence of a Designer, it does call out for interpretation.”
Part Three: Let there be light … and then time stands still
Schroeder addresses the six days of creation in a way that I had never heard before: Instead of concerning himself about whether the days were 24 hours or great ages, he points out that light (as in “Let there be light”), strictly speaking, is free from time. At the speed of light, no time is observed to pass. (page 53ff).
For example, suppose a supernova approaches the earth for 170 000 Earth years. It is finally visible after all that time. But for the light itself, no time has passed. “Light, you see,” Schroeder explains, “is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities.”
Part Four: Self-organization – not random, but according to a preordained program
Addressing the mystery of life’s origin, Schroeder opts for self-organization – but he does not mean by this that after eons of slow cooking, augmented by an occasional accidental stir, life just sort of organized itself. He entirely dismisses the idea that life could have started by chance (pp. 84-85). He argues that self-organization occurred in response to a recipe for life encoded into the nature of the universe.
Part Five: Non-humans with a human form? And what of the divine wisdom?
More controversial is Schroeder’s view that, despite their art works and their habit of burying their dead with grave goods, humans prior to about 6000 years ago were not human and did not have a soul. He argues that they are “Nonhuman creatures with a human morphology [body shape]” (page 140-41). I learned much from his close exegesis of the Hebrew Bible, but at this point, he suddenly lost me
But Schroeder’s central concept is still pretty close to intelligent design – especially his most important concept: The universe is constructed not of matter alone but of wisdom
34 Responses to Did Expelled rip off John Lennon’s music? The Killers’?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So did they rip them off? I’m a pretty big John Lennon fan, but I love what this movie will be spreading to the masses.
I don’t know how I’ll be able to reconcile just completely stealing a piece of music that’s not their own with the rest of the message of the film if it turns out to be true.
Well, Marie, I’m waiting for two things – tomorrow’s presser for bloggers and reports about what is really finally actually in the film.*
Everyone in the industry knows that one can’t just use Lennon’s music, same as one can’t just photoshop Disney’s Mickey Mouse as a ‘toon narrator.
For the present, I’m going to call that whatever’s going on here is something other than what everyone thinks. Wouldn’t be the first time. I’ll blog asap after the presser.
(*I won’t be able to see the film tomorrow myself, as it doesn’t open in Canada till later.)
Marie, best I can tell from reading the scuttlebutt, they licensed the music from the Killers. As far as “imagine” goes, it would appear that they did not use the whole song, or even a significant portion of it. I don’t know how copyright law reads on the matter, but they seem to think that if the snip of a song is short enough, they don’t need permission. As Ono’s lawyer didn’t rattle the “sue” sabre, I suspect that they may have a case. They are not clearly in violation.
Any idea when it’ll make it to the Great White North? I couldn’t find out anything on the website.
Wall Street Journal’s take yesterday:
Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in ‘Expelled’ Flap
Denyse O’leary wrote,
You don’t have to pay for it — the whole article is on Richard Dawkins’ blog. At the bottom of the article is an email from Michael Shermer that says,
“Imagine” is an iconic song — for example, the name of the song is at the center of the Strawberry Fields Memorial in Central Park. Refusing to permit use of the song is ridiculous. IMO the song should be placed in the public domain.
Yoko Ono is incredibly tightfisted about allowing use of John Lennon stuff. For example, here is a case where the owners of a John Lennon film paid $1 million for it in 2000 and she wouldn’t even let them show it for free –
– from http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/40436362
I propose boycotting all Beatles and John Lennon stuff until Yoko Ono eases up on allowing use of John Lennon stuff.
As for the Killers’ song, the WSJ article said,
Also, I am very disturbed by the idea that giving permission to use the songs implies endorsement of the movie by the songs’ copyright holders. IMO that is a very dangerous idea.
Gerald Schroeder apparently wears a yarmulke in the movie — I wonder if that is just to piss off the Anti-Defamation League. LOL See picture at –
http://www.sciam.com/article.c.....ohn-rennie
I only bring it up because in Bridgeport Music vs. Dimension Films, they ruled that a 1.5 second loop of a song violated copyright, and that was just for a piece of music sampling another piece of music.
I’ve heard people say the ‘less-than-25-second-rule’ in film circles before but I know that that’s a myth, so if the Expelled people actually are going to use that as a defence, I’m a little worried as to who’s providing them legal device.
Either way I’ll wait until I hear from them tomorrow and pray for the continued success of this film even if there are little blips on the radar such as this.
A legal beagle somewhere (I forget where) pointed out that there have been fewer than 10 cases of copyright infringement brought against documentary films and of those only 3 were successful for the complainant. Documentary films evidently have far greater immunity in copyright claims.
DaveScot said,
Here is a website that contains a lot of info about fair use in documentary films –
http://www.centerforsocialmedi...../fair_use/
This website has a video with the following description:
An article says,
– from
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c.....1001477929
The “Expelled” movie does not present the “Imagine” and Killers’ songs as just pure entertainment — the movie shows how popular songs are often commentaries on real-life situations. If Yoko Ono sues the “Expelled” producers, so much the better — the prominence of the movie will help bring this “fair use” issue to the attention of the public.
Another thing about Yoko Ono — she is so rich from John Lennon’s royalties that she has no reason to care about money — no filmmaker could pay her enough for rights to a John Lennon song if she is disinclined to grant those rights.
It looks like the Darwinists have struck out again.
I also found this –
– from http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/pr/51/
“Imagine no possessions….”
Fair use presents different issues for documentaries than for fictional entertainment.
For example, suppose a documentary captures an incident in the Toronto subway – a group of teens mobbing, with the police trying to haze them onto the trains.
What luck! Someone throws a punch at a cop, and it is captured on film!
And all the while in the background a grunge favourite, “Cop Killer”, is blasting away, leaking from various earpieces.
To represent the scene authentically, the actual grunge hit – along with all the other noise – should be heard. What if the artist refuses permission?
A film made purely for entertainment, not relying on authenticity, can simply use whatever grunge music is permissioned. But that won’t work for the documentarist because her commmitment is to represent exactly what happened.
The grunge hit is not only a work of art in this case, it has also become part of a first draft of history.
Well, we will see where all this leaves Expelled and Yoko Ono. I have asked for Stein to comment at the presser this afternoon.
If PZ Myers sneaks in again, I hope they just cut the phone. His show went on the road a while back.
By the way, Schroeder is a devout Jew, as his books demonstrate. I would not have emphasized the Jewish influence on his writings were it not overwhelming. His wearing a yarmulke should not be a surprise, and was not likely done to annoy anyone.
You don’t have to pay for it — the whole article is on Richard Dawkins’ blog.
Did Dawkins get the WSJ’s permission? Seriously.
And the Killers are cool.
After the last attempt with the XVIVO animation, which was so preposterous on it’s face, and, I think, slapped down so vigorously by the Expelled producers with a law suit of their own, I’m assuming that this flap is more of the same. Dr. Dembski said in the other thread that the Expelled folks are well covered in terms of intellectual property counsel.
The issue with “The Killers” appears to be dead already, since they obviously DID give permission and Expelled is precisely as the producers represented it.
As far as “Imagine” goes, (and I’ve never been very enthralled by the Beatles’ music) I imagine that they’ll end up being well-covered on that as well.
People just do not want this movie to be seen. That’s all this is.
Slightly off topic but a few years ago I read an article from James Bowman in which he used the song ‘Imagine’ to make a point about certain scientists:
“..Well, it’s hard to believe, but I think it’s because, brainiacs though they obviously are in every other way, theologically they are on the level of the late John Lennon. “Imagine there’s no heaven,” wrote the ex-Beatle,
It’s easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today…
Imagine there’s no countries,
It isn’t hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace… etc.
It’s really the most basic logical mistake, um, imaginable. Because people have quite often cited religion as a reason for killing other people — and the other people for killing them — if you take religion away from them they won’t kill each other anymore. Put so baldly, the proposition could only be believed by a child, but scientists very often are child-like — as, of course, Lennon was. They are also often deficient in historical knowledge and may have missed the last century when the great atheistic faiths of Communism and Naziism killed far more people than religion had ever managed to do in a comparable period of time.”
http://www.jamesbowman.net/art.....pubID=1670
“Imagine no possessions” is something that Yoko Ono doesn’t seem to agree with. She possesses all of Lennon’s music and milks it for every dime she can get out of it.
Schroeder’s The Science of God was the book that allowed me to reconcile my faith with the modern views of cosmology and biology. It’s a very powerful book, especially for anyone who has read more than a passage or two of the Bible.
The fact that Nachmanides, back in the 13th Century, used the Torah to calculate the age of the universe as being around 15 billion years astonished me. Considering the number of possible choices between 5,000 (the YEC number) and infinity, how could someone who was born 400 years before the telescope was invented possibly come up with the same number that scientists today did? It was as unlikely as abiogenesis to me.
Here’s Dr. Schroeder’s explanation of how the universe is both 15 billion years old and 7 days old.
I really wonder if a demonized documentary like Expelled is the best movie to be used to establish the “fair use doctrine” in courts. My guess is that because the movie is critical of science, and ultimately of the courts (Dover), the courts may take a harder line than they would with a less inflamatory documentary.
Angryoldfatman — thanks for the link.
“What they authorized was a documentary about ‘academic freedom in schools’, not the film that the producers produced.”
What’s wrong with that? Restricting the free speech and free thought of academics in schools is obviously not an issue of academic freedom in schools.
:smirk:
Larry farfarman:
“I am very disturbed by the idea that giving permission to use the songs implies endorsement of the movie by the songs’ copyright holders. IMO that is a very dangerous idea.”
It is all part of the Twisted Logic Syndrome these darwinists seem to suffer from. It comes with the territory.
Imagine is also a New World Order song very much aligned with he agendas of powerful globalist organizations. And since ID has roots in Judeo-Christian ideology (something that is detestable to the emerging world politic), I would not doubt the possibility of a little skirmish ensuing over the “ill-intended” use of this song.
JPC at #19,
That it is . Imagine the poor kids who endorse the movie by selling popcorn and soda at the theatres. They’ll be under the microscope before too long.
Davescot: Agreed and agreed. Ono’s a shrewd one. In any case, if you have the time and inclination could you email me at [email protected]? I’ve a question to ask regarding a topic on this site.
thx.,
lpadron
Denyse O’Leary wrote (comment #12) –
Denyse, your scenario might not be an exaggeration. One of my sources said,
– from http://www.hollywoodreporter.c.....1001477929
However, IMO a “tune that happens to be playing in the background” is not in the same category as music that is deliberately chosen by the filmmaker. Still, though, “Expelled”‘s use of “Imagine” looks like fair use to me.
Here is the “The Copyrightman” (or “Royaltyman”) version of the Beatles’ song “The Taxman”:
http://www.lyrics007.com/The%2.....yrics.html
Before he made a retraction, James Boyce wrote on the Huffington Post,
– from Yoko Ono Sells Out John Lennon To Creationist Manufactroversy — UPDATED AND RETRACTION
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....96527.html
Actually, this accords rather well with the apocalyptic vision of the new Jerusalem at the end of time. Paul Tillich points out that in the book of Revelation, there is no temple in the new Jerusalem, because God is “all in all.”
No Temple = no religion. No need for “religion,” as all has been fulfilled and history has reached its destiny and end point.
Rather telic, don’t you think?
Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use says (page 6 of pdf file),
Those who have slanderously accused the “Expelled” producers of dishonest copyright infringement don’t realize that there is a whole new ball game — supporters of reasonable principles of fair use in documentaries have become organized.
Those trying to stop this film accused its producers of fraudulence in obtaining interviews, hypocrisy, plagiarism, and copyright infringement. They have attacked the issuers of license for music used, “informed” Harvard about the video, threatened legal action, advocated sneaking in, advocated bootlegging the film, written to try to dissuade theatres from showing it, etc.
I kept having visions of roadblocks set up to inspect the tire-pressure and tail lights of the trucks transporting the film to theatres.
Meh… the beatles are overrated anyway.
The animals > The beatles
You cannot use samples of a recording that are not cleared/royalty free, (I’m a crate digger in my spare time)regardless of how short they may be.
If you had a a version from a label that no longer had copy and publishing rights to it, you could use it, but ultimately someone’s going to be holding the rights to a song like that…
I would have just had someone similar sing the lyrics.. point would have been the same.
Stone said,
I disagree. Because this is a documentary, I think that a good case for fair use can be made. See the preceding comments.
[...] viniboombap wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptTomorrow I will be in a blogger’s teleconference with Ben Stein and have written to ask that he address the accusation and the rsponse that they only used a little bit of the music. For now I am wondering whether it was a publicity … [...]
[quote]I think that a good case for fair use can be made. See the preceding comments.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter, any unauthorized copying of any audio material from any LLC sole proprietor or inc ect. for commercial use, is a felony crime under federal law.
That being said, I don’t know what the current standing of the copyrights are. As it is an old song and likely the rights to it(Creative publishing and copyright) have likely changed numerous times.
This may work to the documentary’s advantage. Gotta love the bureaucratic system and it’s many many many technicalities via anal retentive paper work.
Stone said,
It does matter. The preceding comments state,
Depending on how they aquired the sample, no, it’s quite likely it won’t matter.
The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) was passed, This law accomplished an “end run” around Fair Use provisions, by making it illegal to copy or sample from any digitally encoded material which is protected by a DRM (Digital Rights Management) scheme (regardless of whether for Fair Use purposes). As the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) puts it:
By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, section 1201 grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the public’s fair use rights. Already, the music industry has begun deploying “copy-protected CDs” that promise to curtail consumers’ ability to make legitimate, personal copies of music they have purchased.
The federal anti-piracy warning began appearing on cd’s in the late 90s, the fair use act was inacted in 1976.
Try something a lil more up to date than wikipedia.
Unless you got that off an old vynl(which is what I meant when I called myself a crate digger) you’re SOL and JWF.
John Lennon’s killer is again denied parole in NY…
I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…