Yoko Ono loses 'Imagine' anti-evolution copyright fight

How can somebody have such an erratic and strong feeling against an artist that was only expressing his views through music and art? John was not perfect like most of us, but his contribution was priceless! Most of his works was towards teaching peace and love among our fellow humans. You sure have the right to express yourself but your comment is somewhat "absurd."

If john lennon is rolling over in his grave it's just so he can take it in a different hole, he was a piece of shit and the world is better off without trash like him riling up the rest of his dirtbag followers.

John must be rolling over in his grave that his anthem was used in a Ben Stein flop.I'm rolling over in my grave at the thought and I'm not even dead. Private Ibber

Who cares, john lennon was a piece of shit anyway.

I am going to hold my opinion here that this whole issue has to do with pure human greed. Let me layout a hypothetical idea that you, a producer, an artist or a "want to be" and you do not have a budget and you are doing your creative works without the intention to make a profit from it. Then as an artist, I am willing to let you go. But if You are making a profit from some of my works and you do not want to pay me a percent of it then You are a greed mischievous *%$$6* thief! Simple as that! Hey this is not the first time I see people stealing from artists. From personal experience I do feel that a part of the World is just a shameful thief with no respect for the human life! Now there is the other part of the story that ends up to be worse than that where the thief becomes a murderer.

Therefore, why don't we make it simple by decriminalizing everyone by making everyone pay a modest gradual percentage according with their profits?

Believe it or not, copyright law can be somewhat confusing, hinging on the date of publication & copyrighting. But simply put, for this particular point of contention, the song IMAGINE is protected from unauthorized use for 70 years after the artists death, & possibly for 95 years if certain extensions for additional protection were filed, depending on what copyright protection existed at the time of copyrighting. Basically, IMAGINE cannot enter public domain before 2050, or possibly 2075 depending on the copyrighting.

No wonder Yoko wasn’t approached for the authorized use of IMAGINE given the context of the ridiculous subject matter & why the song had to be misappropriated by unscrupulous producers desperate to sell tickets while in blatant violation of copyright laws designed to protect artists. They must have missed “All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws” on the John Lennon CD “IMAGINE” or “All rights of the producer and of the owner of the work reproduced reserved. Unauthorized copying, hiring, renting, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited.” on disc 2 of the “LENNON” box set where IMAGINE appears.

There’s a HUGE difference between what “should be declared public domain” & illegal usage & blatant disregard for the law to monetarily profit from another artists work while pushing narrow minded speculative crap cloaked as art under the “fair use” doctrine. We have one of the greatest judicial systems in the world when it comes to protecting the freedoms & rights of its citizens, but some judges’ decisions couldn’t miss the spirit of the law more as evidenced by this pathetic ruling. The movie I look forward to never seeing, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” truly lives up to its title.

The timeless words of John’s masterpiece IMAGINE couldn’t be more appropriate & can’t be sung loud enough given today’s global state of affairs. But, in doing so, & particularly for commercial purposes, using good taste, decorum, & most importantly, LEGALLY at the discretion of the artist or their representatives. I rest my case.

Dollars to donuts the film will also change the words, as has been done in the past, to "..one religion too..". I'm sure he will be rolling over in his grave.

My legal sense is telling me that fair use is a good thing, etc., and of course it's no surprise that those anti-science christians would be deliberately using such a song to promote their agenda... but I think what really gets me about this whole thing is knowing how antithetical it is to John Lennon and what he stood for, and imagining what he would be saying about this right now, had he not been silenced way too soon.

You can't use post modernism as an argument, it's a 90's theoretical end game that's ended.

As a passionate fair use crusader, I've been struggling to just figure out how to respond to this thread. This is a big issue for me, but I just don't know how to begin to address the ignorance, complacency, brainwashing and misinformation on display in these comments. Makes me pretty depressed, actually. I don't want to be too harsh about it, but I am really shocked that *almost* no one here seems to have even the slightest understanding of this issue.

There's not space here to address it. But just know that I am a person who is in favor of copyright and a huge believer in the rights of artists to profit from their creations. And yet I am here to tell you that you guys are completely upside down legally, ethically and in terms of our most basic freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution on this issue, as you've expressed yourselves here.

Not sure what else to say. Just, maybe, look into it a little bit.

I wonder if they had used a different song would there have been the same amount of press coverage?

mad lame

Totally agree and think the film makers should have lost the suit. The point being they paid and got permission to use the other music in the film, so why not this one? Probably because the answer would have been no..
not because they thought it was "fair use" The judge made a (bad) judgment call not a decision based in law. I wonder if they are going to appeal?

I think the court made a very bad judgement in this case. As much as we would like to think that John's music belongs to all of us, it doesn't. Yoko owns it and should have the right to say where it can and cannot be used. I love this song and can understand why she wouldn't want it to be used in this case.

imagine is a great song, one of the deepest songs written by John Lennon. Even if it is only 15 seconds, people should get permission before they steal property of somebody else.

Three points:
1)All samples in rap music have to be cleared for film/television use and when they are not,the sample owners always sue and win when they are not cleared.
2) This has nothing to do with Postmodernism, this documentary was not making a new art form."Imagine" was not essential to making their point and why did they ask permission for every other piece of music except this one?
3)This is not just about the record companies it is also about the little guys who the record companies rip off...

I heard somewhere that radio stations were banned from playing "imagine" durring the months after Sept. 11, 2001.

weird...

It is interesting that the people who John Lennon was appealing to for basic human decency, are the ones that are using his song for their benefit. I think the issue is not only about copywright laws but how callous and opportunistic religion can be.

This is amazing to me! It is a breach of copyright. I am a music supervisor and could not "imagine" using music in a film or documentary with out at least asking permission. I hope they appeal!! The judge has made a bad call in my humble opinion.

Definition of fair use below if anyone is interested.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

I left the theatre after that 15 second loop. It honestly angered me, to hear that in the film and to now learn that it wasn't aproved and that something the artists family clearly feels is upseting and against the spirit of the song as well as being unpaid for its use makes that feel even worse. It honestly...I felt as though the entire film was an asualt on nuanced thought. It knocks inherit the wind and imagine but those two pieces of art tell me more about the nature of the human spirit than a film refuting darwinism ever could.

That being said, its an issue of free speech and criticism. I still however think at least a nominal fee should have been paid for the use of the song, its not as if the studio or Ben Stein couldn't afford it.

The song should be declared public domain

Funny, I thought copyrights existed to protect an artist from scumbags who make money off of other people’s creativity & hard work without paying them royalties. And that this is the only song in the movie that the producers failed to get legal permission to use from the artist or their representatives. Of all the songs to use -IMAGINE-John’s masterpiece from the pinnacle of his early solo career- in another veiled attempt to cast doubt on the over complicated “theory” of evolution supported by centuries of scientific data & neatly tie up all loose ends regarding the creation of the universe & the meaning of life with ignorant, I mean “intelligent design”. Why didn’t they use his song “God”?

If a concept is too difficult to get your head around or your “aha” moment came during another sermon, then it all makes perfect sense. Stop observing & just accept without question, the endless possibilities our glorious world we know so little about has to offer & assume if something can’t be readily explained, then it can never be. But I can assure you John wrote this song to inspire people to think beyond all of the constraints & boundaries set up & reinforced by organizations with their own agendas-like organized religion which does nothing more than divide people and attempt to control their flocks with unquestioning blind faith & reject any other notions that do not fit their dogma. If this lame religious concept helps you sleep better at night, then go for it. What a racket-salvation for sale everyone! News flash-no matter who or what your higher power is-it’s all the same God! Please stop fighting over whose is the most righteous one.

I’ll tell you what intelligent design should be: repeal seatbelt laws, make the infinite types of helmets & protective gear optional & go back to the days when an owners manual was a pamphlet that told you in plain language how to operate what you just bought without pages of warnings telling you things like not to use a hair dryer in the bathtub. A thinning of the herd so to speak, just like natural selection in nature. Let people decide how they want to live their lives because if we dumb down the population anymore, each succeeding generation is actually reproducing offspring dumber than the previous one. That’s why every squirrel doesn’t make it safely across the street without some getting flattened, keeping the rest of the species alive, well & reproducing. Survival of the fittest- sounds like evolution doesn’t it? Or is it time for a Revolution?

The song belongs to the world now.

I enjoyed Expelled, and I love John Lennon, Imagine is a beautiful song, I am a Christian but I see where John Lennon gets his ideas, and it is understandable, unfortunately Religion has caused war, something religion should fervently oppose. Also I believe that humans are sinful and depraved and that John Lennon's faith in the goodness of man is misplaced. But to get back on topic, I think Ben Stein should've asked permission for using John Lennon's song, it was very non-essential to the film and borderline mocking John Lennon. I do however wish things like this could be settled without a court case, Imagine all the people living together in peace, not suing each other and well if Yoko Ono followed the "no possesions" line she wouldn't own the song "Imagine."

I think their resistance for the song being used is based more on the ideology behind what Lennon stood for and sung about versus what is being used for. Theres a pretty stark contrast there.

Tough shit Yoko!

Go get a job and quit sponging off your dead hubby!

this is a strange case because in most documentaries i have seen they have used news media to make a point but the use of John Lennon's image and his music that does not show any relation(proof) to prove the point the documenters are making crosses the line.....i think

Judge Sidney Stein? Any relation to Ben?

- -- ---

re: Julie-soler
It is not the legal victory that I'm talking about. It's the mind set of these poor deluded people. They have no compunction about comparing apples to oranges.

Fair use or malicious intent? I would never deliberately use anyone's work for such a malicious purpose regardless of their political views. And JJammer, John Lennon's political views hurt no one. He was the one harrassed by the Feds and ultimately died for them.

You guys, anyone in the documentary community knows that FAIR USE is the champion of documentary filmmakers. It's like FREE SPEECH. So what if the film sucks, or you don't like the song, or you do, whatever, the win for FAIR USE is a win for us ALL.

Well John was not someone who wasn't without his own political slaps. All is fair.

The intent of their usage was obviously a political slap at John Lennon. Even in death they can't leave the man alone. And Imagine is a tremendous song.

Why would of un-fun-duh-MENTAL-ist want to use John's likeness or words in one of their propaganda films anyway?

"But Mr Stein ruled that if the case went to court, the film-makers would probably win under laws allowing the use of copyrighted material for commentary or criticism."

If that is based on the actual law then where did they go wrong other than using it for a reason she did not like them using it for. Her idea of what is legal and what offends her personal beliefs shouldn't be intertwined. Bad for business and not at all smart.

I was under the impression that fair use had no basis in law and was a rather hopeful make believe excuse used by various people when questioned.

Either way Imagine is a terrible song. Absolutely awful.

That's pretty surprising. I'm not sure I'd agree that using 15 seconds of a song constitutes fair use.