Last week a Huffington Post article called out Yoko Ono for licensing John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ to the producers of Ben Stein’s intelligent design flick Expelled. He was curious about The Killers allowing their tune ‘All These Things That I’ve Done’ to be used as well. Neither the songs nor the original performers seem much in line with the film’s ethos.
The Playlist and little papers like The Wall Street Journal picked up the story, and it turns out that Yoko didn’t license the song. The film’s producers (Walt Ruloff, John Sullivan and Logan Craft) did not seek permission to use the tune but laid it into the film claiming fair use under the First Amendment. Now, to no one’s surprise, Yoko, with Sean and Julian Lennon and EMI Blackwood Music Inc, has filed suit to bar the producers and their distributors from using the song, and are seeking unspecified damages.
This should make for an interesting legal scrum. The film is not a large-budget affair, but it might have some fans with deep pockets. I’d guess that Liberal Yoko vs Conservative Stein would be enough of a rallying cry to send some legal donations to help the film. But beating Yoko on this point doesn’t seem likely. How long will Expelled hold out?
For their part, The Killers claim to have been duped. On the band’s official message board this statement was issued by the board’s head administrator:
“I just spoke to the band’s manager, and adding to the confusion was the fact that they did authorize a project months ago with this request:
Quote: ‘The film is a satirical documentary with an estimated running time of 1 hour and 50 minutes, exploring academic freedom in public schools and government institutions with actor, comedian, economist, Ben Stein as the spokesperson.’
What they authorized was a documentary about ‘academic freedom in schools’, not the film that the producers produced.
They contacted the producers of the film to ask that the song be removed but it is too late. Unfortunately it was misrepresented to them when the request came through to use it. Add this band to a long line of people who were misled by the producers of this film.”
She later added: “The band asked the producers to remove their song from the film when they became aware of the true nature of it. They were told it is too late. That’s all there is.”
As for our own lack of direct coverage of Expelled, the press (in Atlanta, at least) was not given a chance to see the film, and this is one I’m not going to pay for. It’s playing at a theater where I have a screening this evening, and if the times line up I might grab a large popcorn (to throw the theater some money) and sneak in. Otherwise I’ll have to find time this weekend when I can buy a ticket for Sarah Marshall or Harold and Kumar and then slip into Stein’s creationist stew so that I can form some informed opinion.
27 comments
I want to feel sorry for Yoko, but she's just such a crazy bitch that I can't.
Fuck this film and fuck ben stein. Hope the producers get screwed by Yoko. Go Ono!
Right, Chris, Yoko's a completely loooooney cuckoo bitch (nice phrasing there, by the way) compared to the legions of conservative dipshits who want to promote Creationism as a valid lesson to be taught in schools. Are you fucking serious?
I have seen you at my theater before Russel, and I am looking forward to tossing your ass to the curb when you try and sneak into Expelled. I will let you catch the first fifteen minutes or so watching you consume your bag of buttery goodness with devilish ferocity, but I will emerge victorious when I shine my flashlight on your non-paying ass. You have been warned. You will be the one that is Expelled from MY theater!!! Feel my acned wrath!!! HA! Ha! Ha!… P.S I know the projectionist and will shut the place down!! If i have to.
Your eloquence, mr_adam, speaks volumes about the type of people who oppose this film. What are you afraid of? I guess you can't disprove the ideas of this film, so like a child you just scream in a corner. I laugh at your pain.
I'd imagine they're probably afraid of people believing the misinformation in the film, IronCleric.
Based on how the song was used in the film, Yoko has no case. It wasn't just background music. The lyrics and content were commented upon and criticized directly.
right or wrong, how are you going to say that she's not crazy, YA FAGS!!
This film is a travesty. The producers are essentially arguing that myth and superstition be taught in science classrooms. The Producers of this film lied not only to that band, but also to Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers and Eugenie Scott as to what the films was to be about. What's funny is… Imagine has that great line about "Imagine there's no heaven".. then later in the song …"and no religion too". Guess they're gonna have to change those bits, eh?
"Otherwise I'll have to find time this weekend when I can buy a ticket for Sarah Marshall or Harold and Kumar and then slip into Stein's creationist stew so that I can form some informed opinion." — Good man.
I don't see the problem with both theories being taught. You don't have to believe everything your teachers teach…just form your own opinion. People opposing this film seem afaid their ideas might not have as many supporters as the other side…which is wrong, I think. Seems there are more close minded people in this world than those open to various interpretations. But that's just my opinion so don't bother flaming me if you disagree.
You don't see both the problem with both theories being taught? Ill tell you the problem. Creationism is no more a theory than the theory that Spam is the all powerful entity that created the universe! You can't just go around pushing any hairbrained theory in our public schools. Fact of the matter is not all theories deserve credit, although in an empircal sense they can't be completely discounted – but don't worry, I'm working on a theory to change that.
When did Ben Stein become a nut bar?
The reason that creationism should not be taught in science class is because it is not science. ID/creationism/what ever you rename it to weasle your way into schience class is faith based. Science is fact based. We can't toss every nut ball theory into science class just so everyone can feel included.
If they ever offer theology as a highschool class, I am all for Creationism being added to curriculum. Just keep it the fuck out of my kid's science class.
Here is the simplest way to explain why ID (certainly Creationism) should not be taught in SCIENCE classes. If someone who supports ID does not get this, then there is no more discussion.
Science is a method, which uses observation and experiment to validate or falsify theories. The only consistent aspect of ID is the existence of God/a god/gods/Flying Spaghetti Monster that brought about the creation (whether that Creation was the Bible's Six Day explanation or really just a version of Darwinian Evolution is open to each person's bias/belief). Since any reasonable person understands that the existence of God/a god/gods/Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither observable or testable, it is not science, and thus should not be taught in science class, especially high school level. It really is that simple. Once you are in more advanced courses of science, in college, etc., then more theoretical ideas (like String Theory which is testable but tends not to be provable) gets discussed. So, if a professor at the level wanted to discuss theoretical ID, it would be up to his discretion. Of course, no one ever would, but that's the prerogative of college professors.
I agree that fantasy has no place in a science class, so I'd also expect all the moonbats to protest the showing of An Inconvenient Truth in science classromms as that whole movie is a fiction of the highest order. Al Gore himself has said he has no problem overstating the case for global warming if it gets people to act. He admits to lying.
go yoko.
Yoko Ono fighting Ben Stein? That's a bit like Pol Pot attacking Robert Mugabe. Hopefully they'll strangle each other to death.
"So, if a professor at the (college) level wanted to discuss theoretical ID, it would be up to his discretion."
It is my understanding that this movie discusses ID entirely in that context. I haven't seen it.
Darwinian evolution has many problems that are never addressed because honest critics are dismissed as religious idealogues. If we are seeking the truth about our origins, then strong criticism is healthy for all theories.
I'll tell you when Ben Stein became a nut. A few years back, he was on hold to be interviewed on a radio show, and he overheard a live commercial. Someone said the phrase "chew down the price" and he thought they said "jew down the price". He tore into the hosts and even wrote an blog on the subject. Even after it was proven to him that he had misheard it, HE INSISTED THAT BECAUSE IT SOUNDED SO CLOSE TO AN OFFENSIVE TERM, THEY ACTUALLY MEANT THE OFFENSIVE TERM RATHER THAN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID.
Oh please, get real SSmateo. You think anyone who is a critic of Darwinian Evolution is dismissed as a Religious Idealogue!? Fact of the matter is, Darwinian Evolution is a lot more open to interpretation than ID. There are plenty of theories that borrow from Darwinian Evolution but alter/augment it in ways. Any honest scientist would never be so close minded, in fact, the possibility that Darwin's theory is flawed is an exciting prospect to most people interested in science, however you still have to give credit where credit is do.
"The lyrics and content were commented upon and criticized directly."
If this is true, than I think Three Oranges is right, and Yoko has no case. I hope it is true, because that song is a useless cliche. I only wish someone less on-the-fringe were tearing into it.
ID is not even a theory.
Yoko better watch out, Ben Stein has Clear Eyes money.
Science doesn't need to be provable, in fact you can't prove anything in science, what it needs to be is falsifiable and based on empirical observation. That is, the way a theory generally goes (though it takes awhile to make it to the level of a theory) is it is proposed, then you test things that might disprove it. The longer it stands the test of time and the battery of attempts to disprove it, the better, and it gets upgraded from hypothesis to theory to law and so forth. What any hypothesis needs is some kind of risky test, that is, some experiment of some sort, or test, where it makes a prediction, and should that predicition be false, it is disproven. If you cannot think of such a test for your hypothesis, or if it includes such provisions to explain away any false predictions, then you don't have science.
The issue, as stated before with ID, that is, Creationism, is that it's core supposition is that some intelligence created/designed the universe. Can anyone here think of some test where one can use that supposition to make a prediction that, were it proven wrong would invalidate it? Basically can you think of anything that would unequivocably DISprove God? Cause if you can there's a honoured place for you in the history of academia.
I remember when I was in school. A coupole of kids were held out of class by their parents when the theory of evolution was taught because the parent's believed the teacher was telling the kids that God did not exist and they did not want "one-sided propoganda" pushed upon their children. I would assume this film is the backlash against what the Right believes is educators trying to "influence kids" not to believe in God. It's not about anything but two sides arguing who is right and who is wrong. I find it all quite boring because neither side will ever give in and neither side can ever be proved wrong.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.