Anthony Falzone posts at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society that the Center will represent the producers of the controversial film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed: Fair Use Project to Represent Premise Media Against Yoko Ono Lennon and EMI Records. The plaintiffs in this case want an injunction and they want the 15 second clip of John Lennon's "Imagine" removed from the film. No mention of damages.
Falzone says the song is criticized in the documentary for its anti-religion message. Here are some of the lyrics as reported on OldieLyrics.com
Imagine there's no heaven
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
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
It is really hard for me to understand the film producer's use as something other than a fair use/First amendment claim and the two plaintiffs as other than very unhappy that people whose views they don't like are using Lennon's lyrics to make their point (that is, criticizing Lennon's lyrics as exemplifying the social phenomenon they allege -- the suppression of religious views in academe). Could this be any more classically, heart of fair use? What am I missing here?
Comments (4)
Heya! You're missing that the producers of this movie have gone out of their way to say this movie is NOT about religion, but rather a movie in support of "the theory of intelligent design" and an attempt to debunk the theory of evolution via natural selection.
So which is it? If this is simply a propaganda piece for creationists bashing on a very sound scientific theory because it contradicts their beliefs, then their use of the song clip is justified. However, if this movie is a documentary about supporting one "scientific" theory and debunking another, then they should be in hot water. I think we both know it's the former and not the latter, so they probably can claim fair use. However, they should be forced to admit this film is just religious propaganda. Oh wait, they already did. Watch the last 10 seconds of this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk1UCBa7klc
Cheers!
Posted by Darron S | May 15, 2008 6:25 PM
Posted on May 15, 2008 18:25
Sadly, this is one of the commonest reasons I hear that faculty will not make their research or teaching content open-access: the fear of its being appropriated by a person or group with whom they are not in intellectual or ideological harmony.
Posted by Dorothea Salo | May 16, 2008 8:14 AM
Posted on May 16, 2008 08:14
I think the argument regarding the fair usage claim for the inclusion of Imagine in the movie is valid even though I thoroughly disagree with the sentiments and lies of Expelled and Ben Stein. Despite the noise, it doesn't matter much since Expelled has been such a monumental failure.
How can I say that? Well, how do you measure the quality and success of any given movie? You do so by counting the number of bootlegs copies on the street. There aren't none for Expelled. More at “Why There Are No Expelled and Ben Stein Bootlegs” at http://millenniumwriting.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/why-there-are-no-expelled-and-ben-stein-bootlegs/.
Expelled is a failure as a movie and as propaganda.
Erik John Bertel
Author of Flores Girl The Children God Forgot and the Millenniumwriting blog
Posted by Erik John Bertel | May 18, 2008 12:22 PM
Posted on May 18, 2008 12:22
Well, now I have to ask Darron S. what I'm missing in turn here:
"So which is it? If this is simply a propaganda piece for creationists bashing on a very sound scientific theory because it contradicts their beliefs, then their use of the song clip is justified. However, if this movie is a documentary about supporting one "scientific" theory and debunking another, then they should be in hot water."
I don't see how fair use may apply in the former case and not the latter. The intention of a work--whether explicit in its substance, or implicit in its form and implication, or both--might even change over time. If the general view of a complicated or ambiguous work's intent argues for fair use initially--but that view undergoes cultural change in the future--does the use retroactively become "unfair"? I can't see the sense in the distinction here.
"Expelled" does seem engaged in fair use to me, pure and simple. It's unfortunate that Ono seems in response to have succumbed to the "hearts and minds" conflict, and called this an instance of unfair abuse, in effect.
But it's not wholly surprising. What does surprise (and sadden) me is Dorothea Salo's observation of faculty who have a similar reflex re: their own intellectual work.
Posted by Jeff Clark | May 20, 2008 4:22 PM
Posted on May 20, 2008 16:22