Is “Imagine” Even Copyrightable?
| April 25, 2008 | Posted by William Dembski under Expelled |
Yoko Ono, as many readers of this blog by now know, is suing the producers of EXPELLED for using a brief clip of John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” One of the stanzas of the song reads:
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
Is it possible to copyright a song that disavows possessions (copyright being a form of possession)? Once Ono realizes the self-referential incoherence of her suit, I trust she’ll drop it.
[[Addendum: Then again, Elvis Costello may be closer to the truth: "Was it a millionaire who said 'imagine no possessions'?" -- go here]]
45 Responses to Is “Imagine” Even Copyrightable?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
See my Comment #29.
Central Park’s Strawberry Fields section is on land donated by the city. This section of the park gives the songs “Imagine,” “Strawberry Fields,” and the Beatles free advertising of incalculable value. So maybe Yoko should give back a little by allowing a movie (for-profit or not) to use about 15 seconds and 10 words of “Imagine” for free.
You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Yes, the only problem is that the new world order will have no room for Christianity. And in John Lennon’s mind there was no doubt about that.
According to beatlesagain.com:
And Lennon was not the only one!
Some people are saying that the movie’s use of the song would be fair use if the movie verbally commented on the significance of the song’s words in relation to the accompanying scenes. But I think that the movie’s producers wanted the viewers to decide that significance for themselves — if the movie gave a reason for including the song, the effect would be spoiled.
It’s funny, but the Stones were always considered the bad boys, yet they were the ones who sang:
Sometimes you ain’t got nobody and you want somebody to love.
Then you don’t want to walk and talk about Jesus,
You just want to see His face.
“Is it possible to copyright a song that disavows possessions (copyright being a form of possession)?”
This one is dead easy – the answer is “yes”. Not only is it possible, but if such a song were written today then it would accrue copyright protection automatically as soon as it was written.
tribune7,
There is a lot of truth in irony. Sometimes unabashed bad boys are at times more spiritual because they were more honest in the first place. Jesus expresses a wish that people were either “hot or cold”. I think it coordinates with that irony.
Clarence said (#35) –
My blog has a new legal analysis that shows that “Imagine” is not copyrightable:
http://im-from-missouri.blogsp.....table.html
Let’s face it — if this is not fair use, then there is no such thing as fair use of a copyrighted song in a commercial production where the purpose is other than verbal commentary about the song.
Larry Fafarman (37):
“My blog has a new legal analysis that shows that “Imagine” is not copyrightable:”
Yes, I had a look at your blog, and I’m afraid your “analysis” simply isn’t correct. When the Fair Use provisions refer to the nature of the work, they don’t mean the message in the work whatsoever – it refers to the type of work. For example, whether the work itself is a work of fiction or non-fiction (sometimes use of the latter is considered non-copyright material for public interest reasons, such as the Zapruder film), and facts and ideas, which should not be restrcted by copyright. Have a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
William Dembski (and you) are barking up the wrong tree completely. I suggest you drop this one.
Larry Fafarman (38):
“Let’s face it — if this is not fair use, then there is no such thing as fair use of a copyrighted song in a commercial production where the purpose is other than verbal commentary about the song.”
You may well be right, but why should that surprise you? The whole point of copyright is that the creator can control copying of his work. Generally this is considered a good thing – if people’s work is just ripped off then they either stop creating new works or when they do they just keep them secret, neither of which benefits society or the economy.
Controlling copyright allows the owner to licence others to use it if the owner so chooses, in order to get a share of the income from those who use their work and commercially exploit it. Seems fair enough to me. I don’t understand why you have a problem with it.
Clarence said,
The law does not define what is meant by “nature” of the work — it can mean anything, including the message(s) in the work.
When hell freezes over.
And I suppose that allowing fair use of about 15 seconds and 10 words of “Imagine” in the movie “Expelled” is going to discourage songwriters and musicians from composing and performing.
One of my problems is that Loco Yoko Oh-No-No gets a fortune in free advertising from Central Park’s Strawberry Fields section on land donated by the city but is too chintzy to give away a few seconds and a few words of “Imagine” as fair use. NYC never gave “Expelled” a dime’s worth of free advertising. On the contrary, the New York Times panned the movie.
Here is a new stanza for “Imagine” –
Imagine there are no copyrights,
it isn’t hard to do.
Nothing to cause court fights,
no reason for to sue.
Imagine all the people
staying out of court
Larry Fafarman (41):
“The law does not define what is meant by “nature” of the work — it can mean anything, including the message(s) in the work.”
None of the case law I’ve seen on nature of the work addresses the message in a work – it’s all been about whether it is fact or fiction etc.
“When hell freezes over.”
Hey, it’s your life. I was just trying to be helpful and point out you are wasting your time. But it’s no skin off my nose.
“And I suppose that allowing fair use of about 15 seconds and 10 words of “Imagine” in the movie “Expelled” is going to discourage songwriters and musicians from composing and performing.”
Probably not. That’s because they will be able to rely on the law when asserting their rights.
“One of my problems is that Loco Yoko Oh-No-No gets a fortune in free advertising from Central Park’s Strawberry Fields section on land donated by the city but is too chintzy to give away a few seconds and a few words of “Imagine” as fair use. NYC never gave “Expelled” a dime’s worth of free advertising. On the contrary, the New York Times panned the movie.”
Okay. Well, we all have our problems to bear….
Clarence (#43):
What that means is that no court has ever ruled that a work’s message cannot be considered to be part of the work’s nature. And I presume that no court will ever make such a ruling.
You’re trying and I’m succeeding.
Thank you for conceding my point.
It’s not my personal problem — it’s a problem with that greedy tightfisted ungrateful hypocritical twit, Loco Bozo Oh-No-No, who accepts a fortune in free advertising from NYC but is too chintzy to give away a few seconds of a song as fair use.
Any Updates? What about freedom of the press? I just consider this a highlight or synopsis. Even the tv guide does that.
How come people can use music on America most talented without out it being copyrighted? Except for the strings they did their own work. Most of the other songs were possible copyrighted. Either Nbc got the permission to use the songs or the performers did.