Paste Magazine: Expelled uses John Lennon’s “Imagine,” doesn't say please

Priceless.

(I wouldn't want Yoko Ono mad at me....)

due to the fact that they only used 25 seconds of it.

On the 'Lennon Legends' album, 'Imagine' runs 3 minutes and 4 seconds. 'Only' 25 seconds of the 184 seconds therefore amounts to 14 percent of the total.

Legal counsel? Would that be those legal geniuses at the Disco Institute.

I've come to the conclusion that lawyers owe a lot to bloggers :-)

Most TV commercials run only 30 seconds, and they can't use a song without permission. So why is 25 seconds OK again?

And does anyone else get the feeling that all those church groups saving up their tickets stubs may not see a dime of reimbursement once the lawsuits get filed?

Who is their legal counsel?! This is insanity! Even I know there is no such explicit "amount of use" clause in copyright law. They took almost 10% of the overall work in a derivative way to make a profit. This use clearly devalues the licensing rights for the song.

If they knew anything about the law, they wouldn't be talking about "the First Amendment." They'd be talking about "fair use" in copyright law. Yoko can and should eat them for breakfast.

It is also rumoured that the filmmakers used intelligent thought for one clip in the film without warning the audience that they were going to do so, but they insist that their legal counsel told them it was fair use protected under the First Amendment due to the fact that they only used 25 seconds of it.

Imagine there's no lawyers
It's easy if you try
No rules to hold us
Oh aren't we so sly
Imagine all the suckers
Buying into this

Imagine there's no science
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to study hard for
It's all religious news
Imagine all the people
Ignorant and fleeced

You may say that I'm ID-ist
But I'm not the only one
I pray someday you'll join us
And thinking will be all gone

Imagine no evidence
It really isn't deep
No need to know your subject
A clueless flock of sheep
Imagine all the people
Afraid to know the world

You may say that I'm ID-ist
But I'm not the only one
I pray someday you'll join us
And thinking will be all gone

Ex-drone: AWESOME.

The New York Times also has a review up:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?scp=1&sq=Expelled&st=nyt

The review notes that as a freelance writer, Ben Stein writes for the NYT. Despite contributing to the paper, the review concludes:

"Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn “Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself."

In other news, Ben Stein was assaulted by muggers this morning. Police have identified the assailants, but declined to prosecute on the grounds that Stein was only a bit dead.

AndrewR: And does anyone else get the feeling that all those church groups saving up their tickets stubs may not see a dime of reimbursement once the lawsuits get filed?

"Imagine" lasts for 3min04sec. 25sec is a very large part of the song, particularly since it repeats itself several times (the tune not the words, though the verses are based on a similar pattern). I hope they did include "Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too" as a delicious irony.

Ian: Imagine there's no lawyers It's easy if you try No rules to hold us Oh aren't we so sly Imagine all the suckers Buying into this Imagine there's no science It isn't hard to do Nothing to study hard for It's all religious news Imagine all the people Ignorant and fleeced You may say that I'm ID-ist But I'm not the only one I pray someday you'll join us And thinking will be all gone Imagine no evidence It really isn't deep No need to know your subject A clueless flock of sheep Imagine all the people Afraid to know the world You may say that I'm ID-ist But I'm not the only one I pray someday you'll join us And thinking will be all gone

I saw the movie today, and checked my watch. The "Imagine" clip seemed closer to 10 seconds. I wonder if they did some trimming to avoid a potential lawsuit.

IANAL, but I work with the Fair Use doctrine in an educational context. The amount of a work used is but one of four factors determining fair use. Perhaps the most important factor is the commercial or non-commercial nature of the referencing work. "Expelled" is a commercial film. Another factor is the nature of the copyrighted work itself. "Imagine" is a commercial work, too. So you have a situation where a commercial work is using another commercial work without permission. That's why TV commercials get permission to use brief clips of songs.

The fourth factor is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work," and I think it should be pretty easy to demonstrate that the effect in this case is "negative."

The length of the work used would probably be considered completely irrelevant in light of the other infringing factors.

Jim Loter: IANAL, but I work with the Fair Use doctrine in an educational context. The amount of a work used is but one of four factors determining fair use. Perhaps the most important factor is the commercial or non-commercial nature of the referencing work. "Expelled" is a commercial film. Another factor is the nature of the copyrighted work itself. "Imagine" is a commercial work, too. So you have a situation where a commercial work is using another commercial work without permission. That's why TV commercials get permission to use brief clips of songs. The fourth factor is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work," and I think it should be pretty easy to demonstrate that the effect in this case is "negative." The length of the work used would probably be considered completely irrelevant in light of the other infringing factors.

Yoko can and should eat them for breakfast.

The Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project has agreed to defend the Explelled producers use of the words of Imagine. So they must agree that there is something there to defend.

Stanford Fair Use Project

About Premise Media Premise Media Corporation [www.premisemedia.com] develops, finances, and produces independent films, books, and DVDs for the domestic and international marketplace, producing world-class media that stirs the heart and inspires the mind to truth, purpose, and hope.

Neil, you make an interesting comment (emphasis mine):

Do you know something the rest of us don't know? Do tell!

The press release throughout says "use of THE SONG", song of course including words and music, which is where I as a musician get off the Fair Use train, in this particular case.

I'll admit they *may* have rights to the words under Fair Use laws, but I absolutely vehemently with all my heart and soul know that to call use of THE MUSIC fair, in circumstances such as this, would overturn the very thing Fair Use is there for. It's supposed to be to protect artists to be able to create new works of art.

If uses like this, which are commonplace in both documentary and fiction film, are called Fair Use, then it's a blanket allowance for documentary filmmakers to use, for free, essentially any recorded music they want to, and to never have to hire a composer to create new music. This results in ... what was it Fair Use law was supposed to protect? Oh, that's right, the abilities of artists (composers) to be able to create new works of art (new original music for documentary films, in this case).

My apologies for the syntax error. Proper reply to follow.

Andy G, its your angle brackets that are invalid. Use < and >.

Thanks for the tip, Reed:)

Let me try this again.

Neil wrote (but emphasis mine): "The Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project has agreed to defend the Explelled producers use OF THE WORDS of Imagine."

I'm rabidly curious where Neil got this info, because everything I keep seeing says that SLS-FUP has agreed to defend the Expelled proucers for the use of THE SONG in their film. And the point I am trying to get out to as many people as I can is that use of the WORDS is not the same use of THE SONG.

So if what Neil is saying is true (and I hope to God it is), it actually explains something that seemed improbable to me - that the good people over at Stanford who, if they have a Fair Use Project, should certainly know what has a chance to be considered Fair Use in a lawsuit, agreed to represent the producers of Expelled. Under any test that I see, such as, say, the very wording of the Fair Use clause in U.S. Copyright Law, the claim to the use of the lyrics can be supported, but the claim that they had a right to use THE MUSIC as well does not, in this case.

If the film had been a documentary about birds and the producers had not licensed the use of, say, a whopping 15 seconds of Kenny G's "Songbird" under a film montage of seagulls flying, there's no way that SUL-FUP would defend such a case. They KNOW it's not fair use. But this case is no different because you can't argue that you MUST use, say, the particular melody of "Imagine" (everybody hum along with me ... C C C ... E E .. D ..) to "make your point". It logically follows that if you CAN make your point without using someone else's property (here, their music), then your 1st Amendment rights to Free Speech are not being violated.

No doubt when they lose, they will cry "foul". I would not be surprised if they blame the "Godless executives" at "Big Music" for their "repression".

Ofcourse you are right! For sure.