|
|
John Lennon’s heirs have lost their copyright infringement case against the makers of the film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. A federal judge ruled today that the movie can legally use a snippet of Lennon’s song, “Imagine,” without express permission from the copyright holders.
The decision clears the way for Expelled‘s creators and marketers to distribute the film in Canada in time for a June 6 opening, and to market DVDs in the fall. The film needs the added revenue boost; it’s bombing in the US.
On April 22, Yoko Ono Lennon, her husband’s two sons, and his publisher, EMI Blackwood, filed a copyright infringement suit in US District Court in Manhattan, claiming that Premise Media — the film’s creator — had used a part of “Imagine” without their permission. The heirs asked for an immediate suspension of showing the film anywhere, recall of all existing copies and at least $75,000 in damages.
Premise Media, meanwhile, contended its use of the song was within the “fair use” doctrine of US copyright law. The Fair Use Project of the Stanford Law School then announced it would defend Premise and the other defendants in court.
Judge Sidney Stein ruled in favor of Premise Media, saying the use of “Imagine” in the film was legal.
Opening April 18 in 1,052 theaters nationwide, Expelled‘s theater count has shrunk to a mere 83 theaters, and its daily gross receipts have sunk below $20,000. It will soon probably drop out of first-run theaters altogether.
Its total US gross box office receipts are more than $7.6 million, which is still probably far less than Premise Media needs to break even on the $3.5 million film. Canadian and DVD sales may push the movie into the black.
Ruling on Yoko Ono Lennon et al. v. Premise Media et al. – Upload a doc
Read this doc on
Continue reading That’s Expelled 1, Yoko 0
Possibly related posts:
From the Associated Press:
NEW YORK (AP) — A judge has promised a fast decision in a lawsuit brought by Yoko Ono to get the song Imagine taken out of a movie challenging the concept of Darwinian evolution.
A lawyer for the movie’s distributors has warned that the litigation could wreck the movie’s political message by preventing it from impacting viewers in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential campaign.
The movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, features Ben Stein challenging Darwinian theories and suggesting life could have originated through intelligent design. About 20 to 30 seconds of the song are played in the movie.
Ono has accused the movie’s producers of infringing the song’s copyrights by using it without her permission, giving the impression that the Lennon family had authorized it.
US District Judge Sidney Stein’s ruling will settle whether the producers of the film can release it to Canadian theaters and to DVD as planned. The Canadian premiere is scheduled for June 6, according to Premise Media’s attorney Anthony Falzone. DVD rights have to be finalized by the end of this month for an October release, he said.
As for the political impact of the film, this decision will have little effect. The movie is a dog. It has been losing audiences and theaters steadily since it opened April 18, despite all the publicity — good or bad — about it. If the producers of this film think it has any political impact,
Continue reading NY judge promises quick decision on Yoko – Expelled suit
Possibly related posts:
A New York state judge heard Premise Media’s arguments yesterday against a preliminary injunction barring Premise Media and its associates from distributing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed further. There’s no word yet on the judge’s decision, which could mean he is carefully mulling the matter over.
The suit is only part of the movie’s legal woes, stemming from its use of a short clip of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine.” The producers failed to obtain permission to use the song, and Lennon’s heirs and publisher are crying foul.
Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono Lennon, his two sons, and EMI Blackwood filed a copyright infringement suit April 22 in US District Court in Manhattan demanding at least $75,000 in damages, a complete recall of the existing version of the movie, now playing in about 200 theaters, and an injunction against further distribution of the movie.
EMI Blackwood and Capitol Records followed that suit up with another in state court, demanding a preliminary injunction against further distribution of the movie.
There were hearings yesterday in both the federal and state cases. In the state case, Judge Richard Lowe stayed a temporary restraining order issued April 30 barring further distribution of the movie until he rules on the preliminary injunction issue. There’s no word yet on the federal case, brought by Yoko and Lennon’s sons.
Premise Media contends that the use of the Lennon song was well within the “fair use” policy of US copyright law. The case attracted the attention of Stanford Law School’s Fair Use project, which is defending Premise, et alia, in federal and NY state courts. Lawyers for the defendants argue that using the song in the movie is an exercise of their free speech rights, as well as fair use.
The EMI suit and the response to it are now on Scribd.com.
Here’s the EMI suit:
EMI Blackwood et
Continue reading Expelled‘s legal woes — update
Possibly related posts:
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
Continue reading Why they did it
Possibly related posts:
A federal judge in Manhattan has told the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed that they cannot distribute the film any further, until a copyright infringement complaint is heard in court later this month.
The temporary restraining order issued April 30 does not affect existing screenings of the anti-evolution film, which uses a segment of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine,” as an example of “Darwinist” philosophy. Lennon’s heirs filed suit April 24 in US District Court in Manhattan against the producers and distributors of the film, alleging copyright and trademark infringement and requesting monetary damages and an injunction against any showing of the film in its present form.
Expelled is showing in 656 theaters nationally, and has gross box office receipts topping $6 million.
The parties involved in the suit have until May 6 (Wednesday) to produce documents supporting their cases. Premise Media and its co-defendants have until May 14 to argue against the injunction. The plaintiffs, Yoko Ono Lennon, John Lennon’s sons and his publisher, EMI Blackwood, have until May 16 to rebut. Final arguments are due May 19.
Justice is swift, for some of us anyway.
Here is the text of the judge’s order:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Upon the annexed Affidavit of Yoko Ono Lennon dated April 29, 2008, Declaration of Dorothy M. Weber, Esq. dated April 30, 2008, Affadavit of Darnetha L. M’Baye dated April 29,2008, Declaration of Nancy Weshkoff dated April 29, 2008, together with the Exhibits annexed thereto; the accompanying Memorandum of Law and the Summons and Complaint, and all proceedings heretofore had herein
-page-
IT IS ORDERED BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES in open court on April 30, 2008 or as otherwise ordered by this Court, Defendants Premise Media Corporation, L.P., C&S Production L.P. d/b/a Rampant Films, Premise Media Distribution L.P. and
Continue reading Court restrains further distribution of Expelled, per Yoko Ono suit
Possibly related posts:
The producers and distributors of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed have found an unlikely ally in the Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project, which has agreed to represent them in their legal battle with the heirs of former Beatle John Lennon.
Last week, Yoko Ono Lennon, Sean and Julian Lennon and EMI Blackwood Publishing filed a $75,000 copyright and infringement lawsuit against Premise Media and its associated companies, alleging that the makers of Expelled used a fragment of Lennon’s song, “Imagine,” without their permission. The suit also alleges that the association of the song with the anti-evolution polemic damages the reputation of Lennon, his “trademark,” and his heirs.
Premise Media representatives assert their use of the song and its lyrics fell within the “fair use doctrine” of US copyright law, and that they did not need to obtain permission to use “Imagine” in the movie. The filmmakers did obtain permission from other music used in the movie, however.
“The right to quote from copyrighted works in order to criticize them and discuss the views they may represent lies at the heart of the fair use doctrine,” said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project. “These rights are under attack here, and we plan to defend them.”
Falzone will serve as counsel on the case along with Stanford Law colleagues Julie A. Ahrens and Brandy Karl. The Stanford team will be joined by Roy Hardin and April Terry, partners at the Dallas office of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP.
The Lennon heirs’ suit, filed in US District Court in Manhattan April 24, demands that Premise cease using the song in the movie, which would require the existing 35 mm prints be recalled from the more than 1,000 theaters showing the film nationally. It also demands a minimum of $75,000 in damages be paid to
Continue reading Stanford law group to represent Expelled‘s producers
Possibly related posts:
Lennon v Premise Media Corp COMPLAINT – Upload a doc
Read this doc on Scribd: Lennon v Premise Media Corp
Continue reading Imagine no Expelled: The Yoko Ono v. Premise Media lawsuit
Possibly related posts:
|
Recent Comments