Yoko: Expel "Imagine" from Movie
Chris Farina/WireImage.com
Nobody told her they'd rip off John Lennon's music like this.
Yoko Ono is suing the makers of the controversial anti-evolution documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for allegedly using the late Fab's classic "Imagine" without permission.
The suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan on behalf of Ono, and Lennon's sons Sean and Julian, claim the inclusion of the classic cut suggests the family endorses the film's Darwin dissing. They are seeking unspecified damages and a court order barring the continued use of the song in the movie.
For its part, Premise Media claims the "Imagine" segment is covered under fair-use copyright rules: "Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the 'Imagine' clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry."
So much for the world living as one.
Top 10 Stories
- Ashlee and Pete Rehearse at Jessica's House
- Simpson Wedding Watch, Ashlee Edition
- Idol Oddsmakers Dish On the Davids
- CSI Finds Fresh Blood
- Idols Hit the Road
- Ashlee Wedding Countdown Begins With Bachelorette Bash
- Brit 'n' Mel Become Bon Voyage BFFs
- David Squared Equals Bigger Idol Numbers
- DMX Pleads Not Guilty Across the Board
- Rob Lowe Gets Out the Eraser
Hot Topics
Most Commented
- Idol Clears the Way for Dueling Davids (137)
- Does Hannah Montana Know Scotty? (135)
- Parvati Crowned Survivor of the Fittest (122)
- Idol Oddsmakers Dish On the Davids (106)
- OMFG! Heidi & Spencer Skip a Hills Party? (107)
- Idol Note-by-Note: Finalists Go Three for Three (94)
- Surprise, Surprise: Angelina's Having Twins (72)
- Miley's Got Milk (67)
- Ding-a-Ling: Why Is Bai Holding On to This Tree? (66)
- Aniston and Mayer's Miami Heat (65)
Fashion Police
Simply MarvelousFor breathtakingly beautiful Angelina, pregnancy is the finest fashion accessory
More Photos
19 Comments
World News Thu, Apr 24, 2008 1:05 PM
The song 'Imagine' is being mis-used by dictators around the world (chavez,etc)too bad ** But I still like Yoko.
Reportviolette Thu, Apr 24, 2008 9:33 PM
Ironically the lyrics for imagine state: "Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No **** 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..." Why would a religious film (which it is * and they are reimbursing church groups who see the film and turn in their ticket stubs) that claims there is a "designer", want to use the song?
ReportJ_Brisby Fri, Apr 25, 2008 1:54 AM
You mean...creationists are dishonest and morally bankrupt? I feel so...disillusioned. **
ReportGary M Fri, Apr 25, 2008 6:01 AM
Saw the movie last night. It had about 10 seconds of imagine. Brief enough for 'fair use doctrine'. 'Imagine' mirrors the same vision as the Darwinists, no God no religion no heaven no ***** and it was used that way in the movie. It had old video behind it of German soldiers, the last group to make a real try of creating a society without God (remember Nazi"s)? they are still around. Google Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.
ReportJohn OToole Fri, Apr 25, 2008 8:28 AM
I think Yoko, Julian and Sean are perfectly within their rights. Mr. Monotone was in the Nixon administration which worked to get Lennon deported. Instant Karma a few decades late, but still karmic!
Reportearthgurl Fri, Apr 25, 2008 8:52 AM
if yoko or her lawyers had bothered to see the movie, they would know that a short sample of lyrics are used to demonstrate that there are people who view religion as a bad thing and that we would be better off without it. there is even a voice over that says pretty much that same thing, so to say that "the inclusion of the classic cut suggests the family endorses the film's Darwin dissing" is ridiculous in the context in which it is very clearly presented.
ReportMiles Fri, Apr 25, 2008 10:42 AM
They use a back drop of Stalin and the Red Chinese Army as you hear "and no religion too" to suggest Lennon's "no religion" worldview supported totalitarianism. It is highly offensive.
ReportJohn Calvin Fri, Apr 25, 2008 12:34 PM
&at; Gary M: Hitler was actually a Catholic, and so were most of his soldiers; some were Lutheran. Martin Luther was an outspoken anti-semetist, and the following quote from Chapter 2 of Hitler's Mein Kampf. "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
ReportO Bloody **** Fri, Apr 25, 2008 4:11 PM
Has anyone here really, really considered the absolute **** which Imagine suggests? "Nothing to kill or die for" ** no families, no loves, no cares, no passions ** you literally don't care about ANYTHING. Does the phrase "bored to death" not clearly apply? "No possessions, too". Everyone has exactly the same thing as you do. You aren't allowed to make anything unique or beautiful or wonderful ** because then someone would have it and others would not and there would be something to fight over. You can't express yourself artistically or individually, and this would include performances ** because then some would be able to attend and others not ** and once more there is something to fight over. This song does not describe heaven on Earth, as is often suggested ** it describes the ultimate **** on Earth.
ReportJustin Fri, Apr 25, 2008 5:30 PM
Bravo, O Bloody ***** "Imagine" is the single most overrated song of all time. It sounds beautiful, yet it's completely idiotic. Music fans are supposed to crumble under the weight of Lennon's philosophical genius. Please.
ReportMike Fri, Apr 25, 2008 9:10 PM
There is no such thing as a 'Fair Use Doctrine' when using a master recording in a film that being shown to paying audiences. The public use of ANY master recording is subject to the approval of the artist AND is subject to a master-recording fee, to be paid by the film's makers. Just goes to show what idiots these guys are...Ben Stein is a LAWYER for God's sake!...he should have known better. But it doesn't matter anyway, the movie is a flop, and this will be the final nail in its coffin before its undignified burial. 'RIP, Expelled'
Reportclarence clutterbuck Sat, Apr 26, 2008 5:26 AM
The song "Imagine", doesn't have to work perfectly as philosophy * It's a song for flipsake and a **** fine one at that. The simple arresting piano motif is beautiful, like rolling waves. The song will live long after that crummy movie is forgotten. I support Yoko on this.
ReportG. Glass Sat, Apr 26, 2008 8:06 AM
yoko is a old Hag its more about the money
ReportDisappointed Sun, Apr 27, 2008 12:02 AM
How sad that Yoko Ono, whose celebrity derives purely from the fact that she was the wife of John Lennon, should be so mean spirited. There is a "fair use" law, and one may quibble over whether the film made "fair use" of 10 secs of the "Imagine" tune. What is even more depressing is that the sons of John Lennon have been drawn into this unseemly legal wrangle. Since it's publication, how many times have clips of this song been used without the sanction of Ms. Yoko Ono or John Lennon, when he was still alive, and no legal action taken? Is there a hidden agenda in the current action of Ms. Yoko Ono?
ReportRog Sun, Apr 27, 2008 12:36 AM
Imagine thereʻs no Yoko Ono.
Reportbrian Wed, Apr 30, 2008 6:29 PM
fair-use clearly is on the side of the movie-makers. Regardless of whether you find it offensive or distasteful or whatever, fair-use allows a short clip with voice-over especially where the content itself is being discussed. The clip was not just background music as some seem to think.
ReportNeil Thu, May 1, 2008 9:42 AM
And now Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project has chosen to represent the Expelled flmmakers in the lawsuit brought by Yoko Ono. http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080501005471&newsLang=en If a group that specializes in the Fair Use Doctine is willing to take on the case, they must agree that there is something there to defend.
Reportaladdin Thu, May 1, 2008 3:34 PM
It's ludicrous to think this is "fair use." Any time a filmmaker wants to enhance his or her film, he or she can just steal someone else's work under the guise of commentary? The movie is supposedly about academic freedom and various theories of evolution. The use of "Imagine" was entirely tangential and gratuitous. Awful documentary, by the way, not because of the subject matter or point of view-- just really poorly done.
ReportAndy G Fri, May 2, 2008 6:37 AM
Wow. I knew there was widespread misunderstanding of what exactly "Fair Use" is, but to think it's spread all the way to Stanford Law School is incredible. They might have a case to suggest using the lyrics without getting permission was "fair", but I see no way they can claim using the music was "fair". You know, the music? The melody, the chord progression that goes with it? Yoko Ono holds the copyright to BOTH the words and MUSIC of the song (and, as an earlier poster pointed out, the record company, EMI, I believe it is, holds copyright on the specific recording that was used, which included the music). The filmmakers claim the use was fair because they were using it for purposes of "criticism and comment". But since they neither commented on nor criticized THE MUSIC, how on earth can anyone say this is "fair use"? Anyone? Anyone?
Report