This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat - Comments

HitbLade's Avatar Comment 1 by HitbLade

FIRST POST!

NOOOOOOO! i dun even like yoko ono, but Stein is the greater of... one evil and a woman...

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:19:00 UTC | #178580

Bruno's Avatar Comment 2 by Bruno

Article makes a good point, but I was still hoping that Yoko's legal team would throw a wrench into the planned DVD release. Oh well.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:19:00 UTC | #178581

Fanusi Khiyal's Avatar Comment 3 by Fanusi Khiyal

I wonder whether this falls under the 'fair use' proviso about intellectual property?

Whatever - Ben Stein is just making a fool of himself. I sometimes think that this sort of controlled implosion in the media is the best way of sorting out creationist ninnies.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:30:00 UTC | #178594

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 4 by irate_atheist

The Judge is clearly a twat.

You use my image or my intellectual property in your film, you'd better get my permission for it.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:48:00 UTC | #178608

epeeist's Avatar Comment 5 by epeeist

How much would it have cost to put together the movie and distribute it. The takings so far are around $7.6 million (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=expelled.htm) would they have covered their costs with this?

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:52:00 UTC | #178611

Fanusi Khiyal's Avatar Comment 6 by Fanusi Khiyal

You use my image or my intellectual property in your film, you'd better get my permission for it.


Again, irate, the question is: how much was used, and does it fall under the 'fair use' guidelines? To give a parallel, if one were to counter by making a film attacking the IDers and quote sections of their books, we should be allowed to do so.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:05:00 UTC | #178622

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 7 by Border Collie

The way to fight Expelled is to not spend even one red cent to go see it ... ever. If you spend money to go see this movie, you're validating it, no matter how negative your opinion of it.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:11:00 UTC | #178625

Santi Tafarella's Avatar Comment 8 by Santi Tafarella

When all of us argued and carried on about this last month I said that the way "Expelled" used "Imagine" was fair use and, though we don't like the film's content, it would be unfortunate if the court ruled against the film. We, as agnostics/atheists like to make films too, and "quote" religious images and music and voices to put commentary around. In an electronic age, you need to be able to take snippets from others and use them, otherwise you cannot have a vigorous debate. This is a victory for free speech in an electronic age. A loss here would have meant that corporations and megachurches could censor films by suing filmmakers that mock them or use images from their buildings.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:17:00 UTC | #178628

clunkclickeverytrip's Avatar Comment 9 by clunkclickeverytrip

Judge Stein, Ben Stein - wait a minute.....?!

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:28:00 UTC | #178634

Santi Tafarella's Avatar Comment 10 by Santi Tafarella

Border Collie:

I strongly disagree with you. There are many reasons to a see a film. One is to gain information. I intend to purchase the film when it comes out on DVD because I am interested in propaganda studies. I don't like Leni Reifenstahl's politics in the "Triumph of the Will"--but I have it on DVD. You need to know your opposition, and learn from what they are doing. In this case, the film's financial success will not be made or broken by a small group of agnostics/atheists who might be curious to see the film, but by the large group of fundamentalist Christians who might (or might not) flock to it. I hope that agnostics/atheists don't get into a group mentality similar to the far right regarding a Michael Moore film. Get out of your moral bubble of rectitude and see what the other side is saying.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:32:00 UTC | #178643

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 11 by mordacious1

I would hope Yoko let's this one rest. Controversy always sells crap. This piece of crap will die a quick death, if it's off the headlines. Only the "choir" will go to see it.
Imagine no Ben Stein...

Yes, Judge Stein, Ben's illegitimate brother. His mother got around you know (oh just kidding).

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:42:00 UTC | #178651

DamnDirtyApe's Avatar Comment 12 by DamnDirtyApe

Crap.

Still, his association of a peace song with oppressive war imagery only shows how dumb he is.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:43:00 UTC | #178652

Jesse.'s Avatar Comment 13 by Jesse.

I thought the lawsuit for the shameless copying of that fragment out off 'the inner life of the cell' looked far more promising than this one, yet I haven't heard anything about that for a long time. Does anyone know more about that?

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:44:00 UTC | #178653

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 14 by mordacious1

Border

You have a good reason for paying to see this crap. I've been wrestling with it myself. I don't want to give them money, but every time I criticize the "film" to the xians, they say: "Have you even seen the movie?". They have a point. I'm hoping one of my xian friends will rent it and loan it to me. I AM willing to pay for the barf bags myself.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:48:00 UTC | #178657

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 15 by rod-the-farmer

I would like an explanation, in light of this decision, how the Kent Hovind complaints about people using parts of his videos, were accepted by those who hosted them. I believe they prevented people from accessing them ?

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:21:00 UTC | #178679

davemei's Avatar Comment 16 by davemei

You have a good reason for paying to see this crap. I've been wrestling with it myself. I don't want to give them money, but every time I criticize the "film" to the xians, they say: "Have you even seen the movie?". They have a point. I'm hoping one of my xian friends will rent it and loan it to me. I AM willing to pay for the barf bags myself.


Ermm....you could always...download it. =P

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:24:00 UTC | #178681

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 17 by Dhamma

epeeist: According to Wikipedia, the budget was $3.5 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled

Btw, if that's the total cost of the film, then why can't "we" make one as well? I had in mind Dawkins said it would probably cost more than $10 million, maybe he was wrong (or maybe my memory just fails me again). I really hope they'll make one as it will be far more convincing than this one is(according to what I've heard).

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:29:00 UTC | #178685

epeeist's Avatar Comment 18 by epeeist

Comment #188151 by davemei

Ermm....you could always...download it. =P
It would seem that nobody could even raise the effort to take a webcam of it and put the torrent on the "Pirate Bay".

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:30:00 UTC | #178686

epeeist's Avatar Comment 19 by epeeist

Comment #188155 by Dhamma

According to Wikipedia, the budget was $3.5 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled


Btw, if that's the total cost of the film, then why can't "we" make one as well? Not sure what the budget actually entails. Does it include things like publicity for instance, or distribution costs.

If it did cost $3.5 million and it took $7.6 million then how much would be left over to pay the film makers after the distributors and theatres took their cut?

At best it looks as though it might have broken even. I suspect they hope to make money on the DVD release.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:36:00 UTC | #178692

Tack's Avatar Comment 20 by Tack

I haven't seen Expelled (and won't until I can find a way to see it without paying money), but as much contempt as I have for the film and its thesis, if the song was used as described in the article, I agree with the judge's decision.

"Intellectual Property" is being taken much too far nowadays, and fair use (or fair dealing for us Canadians) is one of the few remaining bastions. We must fight for it even when it's used to promote a message we oppose.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:40:00 UTC | #178694

brainsys's Avatar Comment 21 by brainsys

Agree with you Tack about not paying on principle. Does anyone have any news of friendly prolyetising Christians offering free showings in London?

After all if it had real good evidence I could be convinced.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:44:00 UTC | #178696

happyatheist's Avatar Comment 22 by happyatheist

I still wouldn't PAY for the film...just like I don't BUY religious texts...I borrow them from the library or from religious friends...read them and return them...My books by Dawkins and Dennett, et al., take center stage. :)...There are other ways of seeing the film without putting money into the pockets of Ben Stein and those who helped make the propaganda film...Like someone suggested...download it...or wait for it to be posted on YouTube. OR...someone here could "take one for the team."...Whichever one of you buys the film...post it somewhere for the rest of us to view. LOL!

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:05:00 UTC | #178709

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 23 by Steven Mading

The filmmakers are guilty of slander with their unabashed lying about scientists, and the manner in which they used the song was quite dishonest (by implying that John Lennon had no problem with Stalinism, when his song was against THAT as well as religion). However, despite that fact, I have to agree that their use of "Imagine" in the fashion it's used does count as fair use.

I just wish someone would sue them for slander, rather than for copyright infringement.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:14:00 UTC | #178713

Lil_Xunzian's Avatar Comment 24 by Lil_Xunzian

Well, at least the lawsuit crippled Expelled theater debut.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:16:00 UTC | #178714

Cairnarvon's Avatar Comment 25 by Cairnarvon

If it did cost $3.5 million and it took $7.6 million then how much would be left over to pay the film makers after the distributors and theatres took their cut?

At best it looks as though it might have broken even. I suspect they hope to make money on the DVD release.

Considering that they were paying people to go see it (not sure if they're still doing that), I doubt they even broke even.
As for DVDs, I predict most DVDs that wind up in the wild will be "promotional copies" the Expelled gang hands out themselves, so there won't be much in the way of profit there either.

As for the Yoko Ono lawsuit, though, I feel compelled to side with Expelled here. It sounds like it was indeed fair (if retarded) use, and by rights Imagine should have been out of copyright for years anyway.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:20:00 UTC | #178718

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 26 by mordacious1

Yes, what one should do, is post expelled on line as a new documentary about expelled. Intro: The following is a piece of shit, show the movie, conclusion: See what I mean?

This way you wouldn't be infringing on their copyright, because their "film" would be integral to your documentary. Then cite Judge Stein's ruling.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:22:00 UTC | #178720

King of NH's Avatar Comment 27 by King of NH

Maybe we, as atheists, should start to market the film. Once we build it up as the greatest propaganda for atheists EVER, the churches will burn every copy without ever looking any deeper. Let their own dogmatic paranoia work against them.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:18:00 UTC | #178744

Chris Davis's Avatar Comment 28 by Chris Davis

It's trivial, but still a revolting development.

I feel like setting up a webRing, consisting of a hundred or so separate pages, each showing 2 separate, sequential minutes of this silly film under 'fair use'...

CD

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:43:00 UTC | #178754

the great teapot's Avatar Comment 29 by the great teapot

Does free speech include free music.
Sure they could quote the words, but how does free speech allow them to play the music as well.
Constitution my arse.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:15:00 UTC | #178775

Chun's Avatar Comment 30 by Chun

I am no fan of copyright law in general -- and although it pains me to see Stein win this one, I'm actually glad he did.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:06:00 UTC | #178783