So why did Stanford Law’s Fair Use Project decide to defend the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in a copyright infringement lawsuit? To protect their free speech rights, the project’s executive director said yesterday in his blog.
The legal tussle revolves around the movie’s use of part of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine,” to suggest how “Darwinism” might lead to atheism. Reports vary as to the length of the clip, from 10 to 25 seconds, but in any event the copyright holders to the song were not amused.
Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono Lennon, and sons, Sean and Julian, along with his publisher, EMI Blackwood Publishing, filed a copyright and trademark infringement suit April 22 in US District Court in Manhattan, demanding the current version of the film be pulled from theaters and that further distribution of the film be barred. They also asked for at least $75,000 in damages.
Until he hears both sides of the case next Monday, District Court Judge Sidney Stein issued a temporary restraining order April 30 preventing Expelled‘s makers from distributing the movie to any more theaters or in DVD form. His order did not affect the movie’s screenings (dwindling as we speak) already in place.
EMI apparently also filed a similar suit in NY state court, though I do not have those details yet.
Premise Media, the producers of the anti-evolution film, contends that its use of the Lennon clip was permissible under the fair use doctrine of US copyright law, which gives critics and commentators some leeway in quoting copyrighted material.
The Fair Use Project announced just a few days after the Lennon suit that it would defend Premise Media and its co-defendants. Yesterday, the project’s exec, Anthony Falzone, explained why.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary about a contentious issue: whether proponents of intelligent design are being unfairly silenced in academia and beyond. It has been shown on more than 1000 theater screens nationwide, and its producers have drawn praise from some circles and scorching criticism from others. Right or wrong, good or bad, it’s a film that explores important issues of free speech, faith and science.
Yoko Ono Lennon has sued the film’s producers in federal court because the film uses a fifteen second clip of the John Lennon song “Imagine.” EMI, the record label that asserts ownership in the recording of song, has also sued the producers in state court. Both seek an immediate injunction forcing the removal of “Imagine” from the film.
We have agreed to defend the producers of the film in both actions. The reason is simple. The Film uses “Imagine” to critique, explicitly and implicitly, what the film suggests is the overtly anti-religous message embodied in the song, and to respond to this message by suggesting the absence of religion from society can have terrible social consequences. The right to quote from copyrighted works in order to criticize them and discuss the views they represent lies at the heart of the fair use doctrine. The lawsuits filed by Ono and EMI threaten important free speech rights that need to be defended.
Stay tuned for more information as the case develops.
Well, fair enough. I’m no legal eagle, but Premise et alia were asking for trouble when they failed to obtain permission to use the clip while obtaining similar permission for their use of other musicians’ work. They certainly have free speech rights — the whole movie is a crock, but hey, it’s a free country — but the question is whether they played by the rules.
Meanwhile, one could make the argument, as many have, that Yoko is lawsuit-happy, and that the suit is to some extent frivolous. She is pissed that a Huffington Post blogger erroneously suggested that she had “sold out” by allowing the song to be used in the movie, which generated a storm of anti-Yoko sentiment on the Internet. The blogger retracted his statement, but too late.
The Lennon suit alleges that the controversy harmed the reputation and trademark of John Lennon, his heirs and the special meaning of his “signature” song.
So, on the one hand, we have the film makers contending their criticism of “Imagine” was legal under Constitutional and copyright law. On the other, we have Lennon’s heirs arguing the clip was used without their permission in such a way that would harm their reputations, infringe their copyright and damage the Lennon trademark.
The outcome will be interesting, as it might clarify (or not) the extent to which critics can quote copyrighted material. If the case goes Yoko’s way, Premise Media will have to pull the existing version of the film now playing in about 400 theaters. Since its theater count has been dropping like a rock each week, such a recall would pretty much kill the movie’s theatrical engagement outright.
Then again, it might be a mercy killing.