Is “Imagine” Even Copyrightable?

_{William Dembski

April 25, 2008

Expelled}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Yoko Ono, as many readers of this blog by now know, is suing the producers of EXPELLED for using a brief clip of John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” One of the stanzas of the song reads:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

Is it possible to copyright a song that disavows possessions (copyright being a form of possession)? Once Ono realizes the self-referential incoherence of her suit, I trust she’ll drop it.

[[Addendum: Then again, Elvis Costello may be closer to the truth: “Was it a millionaire who said ‘imagine no possessions’?” — go here]]

Comments

Maybe that clever Ben Stein planned this whole thing from the beginning -- maybe he even bribed Yoko and the music companies to sue him. Maybe he also bribed XVIVO, the video producer, to threaten him with a copyright suit -- after all, there is no evidence that XVIVO is even a part owner of the video's copyright (Harvard is an owner of the copyright and may be the sole owner).Larry Fafarman_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PST}

I predict that after much rattling of legal sabers, this will be settled out of court for an undisclosed sum (like $1.00). Both sides will proclaim victory and life will go on. Taking it to court is a double-edged sword. Yoko might win, but there is a reasonable chance that she could lose, which would set a precedent that could open the floodgates. She and the labels have more to lose than they have to win. Better to keep a potential threat hanging over people's heads than to go to court and risk losing.sagebrush gardener_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PST}

Good one, russ. More free PR, Yoko!wnelson_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PST}

Denyse O'Leary on another UD thread:
Everyone in the industry knows that one can’t just use Lennon’s music, same as one can’t just photoshop Disney’s Mickey Mouse as a ‘toon narrator.
sparc_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PST}

Maybe they're just trying to lawyer the Expelled people up as punishment for making John Lennon look like a naive fool who promulgated destructive ideas. I wonder if her lawyers are dreamers or $500/hr realists?russ_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PST}

I don't know what Yoko expects someone to do in this case. Is the song legally protected from criticism, or can it only be criticized in the absence of its content? But perhaps this is another brilliant publicity joint venture by Rocky Mountain and its enemies.russ_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PST}

'Imagine no possessions' -- Now hand over yours. It does seem like fair use to my layman legal mind. If they remove the tune, could they insert subtitles?bevets_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PST}

Here is the story as well as I can make it out -- Yoko Ono, John Lennon's sons, and the song's publisher, EMI Blackwood, filed a joint suit in a federal district court -- see http://onthecoversongs.blogspot.com/2008/04/lennon-complaint.html Ironically, the case was assigned to a judge named Stein. Apparently because of a technicality concerning the fact that this is a pre-1972 song, the record label companies EMI Records (possibly related to the publisher EMI Blackwood) and Capitol Records filed a separate joint suit in a state court -- see http://onthecoversongs.blogspot.com/2008/04/lennon-state-court-action.htmlLarry Fafarman_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PST}

Megan.Alavi said,
As somebody who thinks that they are a laywer I’m surprised that you advocate ignoring copyright.
And you are advocating ignoring the principle of fair use.
Do you mind If I take your blog and republish it under my own name?
Do you really think that my blog is that good? I'm flattered. Nothing on my blog is copyrighted and so any or all of it may be republished under another name. I would appreciate attribution where appropriate, though -- that's only fair.
Another lawsuit has apparently been launched, this time by the labels themselves.
Good -- we'll boycott the labels too. That's even better. Yoko Ono and the labels may get more than they bargained for -- the Fair Use Project of the Center for Internet & Society at Stanford Law School has "announced that it will agree to provide pro bono legal representation to certain filmmakers who comply with the Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use published by the Center for Social Media at American University." Details are in my following blog post -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/04/yoko-ono-sues-expelled-producers-over.htmlLarry Fafarman_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PST}

Dr Dembski
Once Ono realizes the self-referential incoherence of her suit, I trust she’ll drop it.
I'm afraid this is likely to be one of your few predicitons that fails to happen. Another lawsuit has apparently been launched, this time by the labels themselves. For more details see here http://onthecoversongs.blogspot.com/2008/04/lennon-state-court-action.htmlMegan.Alavi_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PST}

Hi Larry, As somebody who thinks that they are a laywer I'm surprised that you advocate ignoring copyright. Do you mind If I take your blog and republish it under my own name? Will that be OK with you?Megan.Alavi_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PST}

Imagine no possessions... NOW PAY ME!Frost122585_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PST}

LOL. This shows you the utter hypocrisy of the left.Frost122585_{April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PST}

The song is a vow of poverty. Yoko Ono should lose all of John Lennon's copyrights.Larry Fafarman_{April 25, 2008
April
04
Apr
25
25
2008
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PST}

Ben Stein said,
"So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions' ?"
Yes, it's ironic, isn't it? It's like mendicant monks suing over unauthorized use of Gregorian chants. I am proposing that John Lennon and Beatles products be boycotted until Yoko Ono drops her nuisance suit -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/04/boycott-john-lennon-and-beatles.htmlLarry Fafarman_{April 25, 2008
April
04
Apr
25
25
2008
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply