Ben Stein defeats Yoko Ono in fair use victory

> How does it harm Yoko's property in ANY WAY for a 15 second clip to be used in a film that was commenting on that clip?

By violating her right to control her property.

2. What is more important to protect: the right to critique or the right of copyright holders to profit?

A. That's not our decision to make, since it's not our song (so ask the owner of the song).
B. That song was not required to critique anything.
C. That same rationale could be used to say that a song-writer didn't have the right not to write the song in the first place.

People are free to critique whatever they want. Copying/reusing it without permission is another matter. I can critique something without quoting it.

Although that's kind of irrelevant, since Ben Stein wasn't citing the song to critique the song - just playing the song in order to defend the insane creationist nonsense he's peddling (not that it matters what side of the issue he's on).

How is it narrow minded of Yoko Ono to want to protect her property?

Blazesboy I see your point.
Fair-use is an important issue for free speech.
It seems narrow minded of Yoko Ono to go after Ben Stein, especially in this critiquing context.
I love that we don't have to fear being sued on Current..I'm not sure how that works but it seems like a similar situation...the critiquing of everything Holy. I love it. It seems like a lot of the time before Current I would look for my posts and they would magically disappear from the regular media. With Current I can enjoy putting in anything I want without fear of retribution. This is the key to the future of Free Speech...so cool!

Absolutely in agreement, Blazesboy. Further, living in Germany, it came to my attention a week or so ago that Frank Zappa's widow was also going after some dude in some tinsy little village in the middle of this country somewhere (or nowhere!) - the specifics escape me - who for years has been running some quaint Zappa festival that suddenly is the victim of litigation out of the US; the aforementioned Mrs. Zappa having come to the conclusion that the event is some how detrimental to the artist's legacy. I wouldn't dare suggest that there is any thought of monetary gain!

For some of us "Imagine" is an expression of spirituality, for others it is blasphemy. That dicchotomy makes the lyrics political. SCOTUS grants the highest level of protection under the 1st amendment to political speech. But in offering up that protection we must also open the door to criticism and expression of opposing views.

Somehow the John Lennon I imagine I know might be peeved that his song is included and criticised in something like Ben Stein's movie. But i suspect that he might find a way to use that to get a few hundred or a few hundred thousand more people to actually sit down and listen to his song, all of it. And I imagine that far more would be as moved by it as I am than would be offended.

Thanks blazes, for putting this up on Current. As a documentary film student, I have been following the issue of Fair Use for some time. It seems that the more people invoke their right to Fair Use, the more easily it is used and defended. A doc I worked on a couple years ago is called "Lawyer Walks into a Bar" (available from Amazon.com) and we used the song "Happy Birthday" in the DVD because one of the law students was having a birthday party and her friends sang it. I was the one videotaping it. I made sure the song was loud and clear, and the revelers were all lit up by the headlights of their parked car, so everyone would know who they were.

Guess what? Warner Chappell licenses the rights to that song, and if they wanted to come after us and challenge our right to Fair Use for "Happy Birthday" they could have. But they didn't...after all, it's a movie about lawyers....no but really I don't know exactly why they didn't. Probably bad publicity?

Check out the film, "This Film is Not Yet Rated" because the director of that used a ton of movie clips, all which he didn't pay for, all under the doctrine of fair use.

All filmmakers should invoke Fair Use at least once in a while. It's sort of like "Use it or Lose it".

Creationists are nuts too. :)

Two things.

1) Intellectual property of a creative work (not a "discovery", that someone else could have theoretically discovered eventually anyway) should be limitless. You write the song, you dictate it's use 100%. This ruling is probably legitimate, but the law it adheres to is insane.

2) Creationism is $#&* nuts.

Blazeboy......I do get it.....the right to place our personal opinions before others without the fear of retaliation...is the greatest building block of this great nation.....there are two main forces in work here.....artists and critics.....the two don't mesh......you are either one or the other......one feeds off the other.....if a person is critical of something negative or destructive.......I am all for them....Criticism without action is pointless...the founding people of this nation knew that......if they are critical of someones art, clothes selection, hair style, cooking, etc.......then that is totally useless criticism......don't judge until you have worn someones moccasins.........the fact that so many are more worried about financial gain than the welfare of their fellow man.............well.........I criticize them.........Golden Ruler.....Will.......Will...Not....Will....Not...................

You don't get it. Possibly the most crucial freedom we have as Americans, under the First Amendment, is the right to criticize. No one should be allowed to stifle that right, for any reason, ever, in my view, as it is the very foundation of our democracy. Whether it's criticizing the government, corporations, individuals or ideas, this is one of the greatest and most precious freedoms we have.

If Yoko Ono (or any other copyright holder) is allowed to withhold permission to use a work for which she holds the copyright when that work is being criticized, she is illegally stifling that guaranteed right.

Let's be clear: this is NOT about file-sharing, about "stealing," or about someone simply inserting the song, "Imagine," into a film because it's a popular song and they hope to cash in. This is about a work of criticism, that uses a tiny snippet of "Imagine" for the purpose of making a critical point ABOUT that song. Just because Yoko (and I) happen to disagree with the point of the criticism does not give her the right to block that criticism.

As an artist, you should understand and support this principle in a PROFOUND way. However, you're not alone by any means in believing that you should be paid (or asked permission) for any use of your work. This is a special case, under the law (called fair use), and in this case you do not need to be paid or asked permission.

Animals wrapped in Cotton........money........lawyers.........intelligent design..........everything is the same....everything is different........different forms......is a moustache any different than the hair on your big toe..........Ben Stein dressed like the guitar player from AC/DC........My Good.....I cry and laugh at the same time.....Human Beans.........Golden Ruler..............Richard...........