Imagine there’s no Expelled

expelled.jpg I’ve been sitting on this for an hour because, frankly, I can’t stop laughing quietly to myself. As Andrea over at the Thumb notes, the producers of Expelled are now in trouble with Yoko Ono for using Lennon’s "Imagine" without permission. Seriously. I’m not making this up. First it was plagiarism from, not one, but two sources, now it’s ripping off the Lennon estate. These guys are going to need to hire some damned good lawyers.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Imagine there’s no Expelled

  1. Every single person involved in ID is a mole, secretly working for the other side. Phillip Johnson started things to lure idiots out of the woodwork so he could laugh at them, but the ones who came out were closet evolutionists, hoping to sneak in at the ground floor and make sure the movement never got any traction.
    It’s the only thing that makes sense, even if it sounds like the plot to a lame comedy.

  2. Also sounds like stories of multiple federal agencies all introducing moles into some potentially dangerous organization and ending up being the majority of the group.
    The other off beat theory going around is that they want to be sued so they can say, “See, see this is how Big Science muzzles the truth.”
    How such buffoons can be treated as credible by such a large segment of the population just amazes.

  3. “Imagine there’s no Expelled.”
    You just made my day with that title. Thank you.

  4. @ Jim
    I agree with you philosophically, but as you point out over at your place, it should count as fair use but the court has already decided it does not. Thus, the producers are still legally at fault (despite how we would want to change the law) and their legal “advice” is in error.

  5. What would put the cherry on top of the Expelled Sundae is if they get the Thomas More Law Center to defend them. The Thomas More folks, after all, did a sterling job in Dover, PA.
    Oh. Wait. Hm.

  6. A poster at Abie Smith’s ERV blog says that the stolen cell video and Imagine clip are NOT in the final theater product.
    http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/04/premise-lawsuits-toddler-animations-and.html
    However, the producers can STILL be sued for using the stolen video and Lenon song in advertising (which the early showings were).
    In the big picture, it looks like they won’t be able to be sued and closed down, but they might be able to be sued for the early showings. And of course, they are still dishonest charlatans preaching to the “faithful”, and nothing will change that.

  7. I agree that a 25 sec clip should be able to be blocked by an artist ….that’s long enough to be featured in an ad for anything.

  8. J-Dog: I don’t see any conclusive evidence that they’ve substituted video from “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” (the video Dembski substituted for the XVIVO film in his lectures after getting a cease and desist notice), but I think that’s a reasonable speculation. I guess we’ll find out in the next week or so.
    BAllanJ: I think 25 seconds could be infringing (such as in the example you describe), but also could be fair use.
    I think this is fair use. (Fourth video down is a version of “Imagine” which includes samples.)
    John: Well, in the 6th Circuit, anyway. I think they made the wrong decision, though. “Fair use” still exists in statute…

  9. Re: last: Oh, I see, it’s a new YouTube video posted by “getexpelled” on April 15, that is not derived from the XVIVO footage. (Perhaps not from “Unlocking,” either.)



    If that’s the footage they bring forth in court in Texas and use in the film, they’ll win a declaratory judgment, even though they will actually have complied with one of XVIVO’s key demands (don’t use our film or footage derived from it in your movie).
    In other words, another deception. But I guess that’s what J-Dog already said in #7, I’m caught up now…

  10. I suspect that there are not going to be any copyright infringements in the theatrical release of this propaganda film, and that they never planned there to be. The material in the pre-release showings was to create a buzz (the debatable ‘no such thing as bad publicity’ concept), and they are hoping that they wont be liable for it because they were private screenings. I guess it comes down to whether or not they can be considered as adverts for the film.
    Then I remember Hanlon’s Razor.

Comments are closed.