Yoko Ono Files Suit Against Expelled Producers

| 101 Comments

John Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the makers of Expelled, on the grounds that they did not get Ono’s permission to use portions of Lennon’s hit song “Imagine” in the movie. The case is Yoko Ono Lennon, et al. v. Premise Media Corporation (S.D.N.Y., No. 08-03813).

(Read the rest at Freespace…)

101 Comments

Awesome!

Apparently the producers of ‘Expelled’ did NOT obtain permission to use Norman Greenbaum’s song ‘Spirit in the Sky’ either. There may very well be another lawsuit pending.

I sincerely hope that the various lawsuits against Premise Media end up awarding various very large damages to the plaintiffs; thus turning the blatant (if too routine) fleece-the-believers-to-line-our-own-pockets scam into a permanent money hole. Anything which drains the finances of the ID/creo demagogues will serve as a useful example, and will hopefully (*crosses fingers)discourage this sort of disgraceful sham in the future.

One rather cynical prediction: Ben Stein and his DI handlers will distance themselves from Premise, saving themselves from punishment for their own sleazy behavior by sacrificing the film-makers. Premise will declare bankruptcy, pay out about twelve dollars in damages, dissolve and reorganize under a new name.

J. L. Brown said:

Apparently the producers of ‘Expelled’ did NOT obtain permission to use Norman Greenbaum’s song ‘Spirit in the Sky’ either…

Where can I read more about that?

There once was a lady named Yoko,

sho had an ironclad copyright infringement case.

When she tried to sue,

she won. Bigtime.

…Oko’s permission…

A typo?

Let’s hope this is the first of many lawsuits against Premise. If Yoko’s attorneys and British Musicians Incorporated, who are also part of the suit, did have firm legal standing, they wouldn’t waste their time. The idiots filed suit against themselves here in Texas regarding the Harvard video. After the losses we can sit back and laugh at all the “activist judge” rulings against Premise.Oh that awful conspiracy.

Let’s hope Yoko Wins Ben Stein’s Money!

Hi David,

That’s a great limerick you wrote, and a poem that’s much better than that sleazy Uncommon Dissent “ripoff” version of “Imagine” that I posted here a few days ago (BTW, at Uncommon Dissent, our “pal” Bill D. has wondered whether Ono has the right to sue. How ironic since he seems so possessive of his own intellectual property rights with regards to his “textbook” “The Design of Life” and his other mendacious intellectual pornography pretending to be genuine books devoted to science.).

Speaking of Bill D. and his fellow Disco Tute mendacious intellectual pornographers, I would love to see Ono’s lawyers sueing them for acting as the unofficial “public relations” firm on behalf of Premise Media.

Regards,

John

Hi all,

The ever “astute” Denyse O’Leary has had yet another acute case of verbal diarrhea, as demonstrated here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/expe[…]s/#more-3287

Of course she devotes most of her screed to criticizing the Ono lawsuit (Hey Denyse, don’t you know that both Julian Lennon and Sean Lennon are the plaintiffs too, in addition to Ms. Ono?).

Regards,

John

Hey, offtopic, but does anyone know what happened to Abbie Smith’s blog, ERV? Blogger says it was removed, and the name not up for taking. I could speculate about why it’s gone, but mostly I’d like to find out where she disappeared to. Sorry if this has already been hashed out elsewhere.

Dear Duncan,

I don’t know why Abbie’s blog was removed. I’ll write her and ask why. It was up as of last week.

Regards,

John

I’ve heard that Norman Greenbaum pretty much lives (a relatively modest lifestyle) off the royalties from this one song. If so, I suspect he’ll be looking for a cut, at the very least.

Hi Duncan,

Here’s the answer to your question regarding Abbie Smith’s blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/

I surmise that some of the IDiots pressured GOOGLE to delete her previous ERV, but that’s just a wild conjecture on my part.

Cheers,

John

I have to laugh at those of you who find such inane pleasure in Ono’s suit against Expelled. She has a team of attorneys on her payroll whose only job is to search for anything that has anything to do with her meal ticket. They have even gone so far as to sue a singer with the first name of “Lennon”. It is absurd, and she is a despicable human being. Those involved in the movie did not make it with profit in mind, something that the jokers in Hollywood cannot fathom.

FYI, nerds, check out all the free publicity now. Now everyone will know about the movie, and will be curious.

Oops, did I just convey information that your pre-programmed mind cannot compute?

Oops, did I just convey information that your pre-programmed mind cannot compute?

If I were to assume that the individual posting as “Donna” is stereotypical of the film’s supporters (i.e. believes in a talking snake), my irony meter would have just pegged. (Full disclosure: argument from personal incredulity follows.) I fail to see how one maintains such beliefs without life-long “pre-programming” in the religion of one’s parents.

Apologies in advance if this is not the case.

It is absurd, and she is a despicable human being. Those involved in the movie did not make it with profit in mind, something that the jokers in Hollywood cannot fathom.

Ladies and gentlemen, Donna. Yet one more good Christian who cannot get their head around “Thou shalt not steal”, “Thou shalt not lie” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness”.

Seemingly, simple enough concepts, but hey, what would I know about ethics, I’m just a “Darwinist”.

It is absurd, and she is a despicable human being. Those involved in the movie did not make it with profit in mind, something that the jokers in Hollywood cannot fathom.

Ladies and gentlemen, “Donna”. Yet one more good Christian who cannot get their head around “Thou shalt not steal”, “Thou shalt not lie” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness”.

Seemingly, simple enough concepts, but hey, what would I know about ethics, I’m just a “Darwinist”.

Not only that, but Ono apparently didn’t actually sue Lennon Murphy, just took issue with Murphy trying to trademark and claim exclusive use of the name “Lennon”, which is more understandable.

A creationist screechily passing on a smear without fact-checking? I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

John Kwok said: (BTW, at Uncommon Dissent, our “pal” Bill D. has wondered whether Ono has the right to sue. How ironic since he seems so possessive of his own intellectual property rights with regards to his “textbook” “The Design of Life” and his other mendacious intellectual pornography pretending to be genuine books devoted to science.).

Well, while dumbski’s musings are completely valueless, you must admit that there is at least a little irony in someone suing for property rights over a song that decries property.

Strange bedfellows and all that.

sincerely,

Stevaroni,

Just out of curiosity, what’s the difference between “Thou shalt not lie” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness” other than the fact that the latter is part of one of the ten commandments and the former is not? And BTW, the rest of the commandment is “against thy neighbor” and if you consider “neighbor” to be just those who share your religion…

Donna said:

FYI, nerds, check out all the free publicity now. Now everyone will know about the movie, and will be curious.

Despite all the ‘free’ publicity, Expelled absolutely tanked at the theaters this weekend and will probably be pulled from a lot of theaters for this weekend.

That’s not a conspiracy, the movie is just horribly horribly boring.

Bill Gascoyne said:

Stevaroni,

Just out of curiosity, what’s the difference between “Thou shalt not lie” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness” other than the fact that the latter is part of one of the ten commandments and the former is not? And BTW, the rest of the commandment is “against thy neighbor” and if you consider “neighbor” to be just those who share your religion…

My bad. I started with “thou shalt not lie” and “thou shalt not steal”. Then I figured, no, I’ll be accused of misquoting Exodus (“thou shalt not paraphrase?”) so I added the more proper “thou shalt not bear false witness”, but forgot to edit out the original “thou shalt not lie”.

There are still just 10 commandments (um, mostly, depending on how you count).

In my case, perhaps there should be one more; “Thou shalt proofreed twice, for thou art a dufus at the keyboard, and your spelling and grammar are an abomination in mine sight”.

ust out of curiosity, what’s the difference between “Thou shalt not lie” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness”

Bearing false witness is falsely accusing somebody of doing something they shouldn’t have done.

There are still just 10 commandments (um, mostly, depending on how you count).

There were supposed to be fifteen, but Mel Brooks dropped the third tablet.

Henry

Donna said:

Those involved in the movie did not make it with profit in mind, something that the jokers in Hollywood cannot fathom.

Well, I’m glad they didn’t have profit in mind because it looks like the film won’t make one after all is said and done. Call me cynical but I tend to think that Premise media probably did want to make a little money in their quest to lie for Jesus.

FYI, nerds, check out all the free publicity now. Now everyone will know about the movie, and will be curious.

Nice ad hominem you added there. I’m not so sure everyone will know about the movie because of this lawsuit. PT is the first place I heard about this particular lawsuit, and I have yet to see it mentioned on any of the local networks where I live (Which is consequently in the buckle of the Bible belt). Anyway, I am sure that in the end they could have done a lot more in the way of advertising for what this is likely to cost them.

Darwin himself said that the “theory” was open for debate and criticism. I find it shameful, but not surprising, that the current attitudes and teachings on the subject are no longer theoretical. I find it absurd that those who entertain the idea of ID are attacked with such manic criticism. I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

Donna:

I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

The harshness of the opposing “opinion” is entirely due to the fact that the creationists are NOT debating anything (scientific debate requires, you know, research, evidence, stuff like that). Instead, creationists deploy public relations, misrepresentations, and lies. And that’s ALL they use.

Let’s say that someone with a fat wallet chooses to publicize false claims about you. Let’s say you repeatedly ask that they support those claims with evidence, but of course since the claims are false, they have no evidence. Instead, they have money and fanaticism, and they HATE you. So they keep up the same lies, never with the slightest support. Eventually, having heard the same lies so many times, other innocent folks figure they must be true, and join in.

Would you start holding a harsh opinion of your opponents? It’s not that they haven’t given any “real thought” to their lies about you, it’s that they DO NOT CARE that they’re lying, so long as YOU are made to suffer. I think after a while, you might become annoyed.

Donna:

I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

The harshness of the opposing “opinion” is entirely due to the fact that the creationists are NOT debating anything (scientific debate requires, you know, research, evidence, stuff like that). Instead, creationists deploy public relations, misrepresentations, and lies. And that’s ALL they use.

Let’s say that someone with a fat wallet chooses to publicize false claims about you. Let’s say you repeatedly ask that they support those claims with evidence, but of course since the claims are false, they have no evidence. Instead, they have money and fanaticism, and they HATE you. So they keep up the same lies, never with the slightest support. Eventually, having heard the same lies so many times, other innocent folks figure they must be true, and join in.

Would you start holding a harsh opinion of your opponents? It’s not that they haven’t given any “real thought” to their lies about you, it’s that they DO NOT CARE that they’re lying, so long as YOU are made to suffer. I think after a while, you might become annoyed.

Re: lying and bearing false witness- If I’m not mistaken the interpretation among traditional Jews is that the prohibition on bearing false witness applies to actual testimony, that is being a witness in a court and saying something falsely.

Donna, no one is saying that one cannot criticize evolution. The problem is none of this is useful criticism. ID had a 90 minute chance to present the best arguments it had and there was less science the movie than an Outer Limits episode. Instead of repeated claims of persecution, IDist should a) give an actual definition of ID b) devise experiments that will test for ID and c) actually do them. Until then no number of complains are useful. There’s no need to debate with people who aren’t willing to do science. It isn’t much more complicated than that.

All the objections to evolution raised by ID have been answered many times over. It’s one thing to be open to criticism; it’s quite another to expect one to answer the same criticism ad nauseum as one’s critic refuses to acknowledge the response. A debate goes two ways. This debate was lost by the ID side a hundred years ago, and they’ve yet to admit it.

“Although a wise man might urge that one suffer fools gladly, this should not be construed as a license for any fool to demand that one do so.”
Fredrick William Kantor

Donna wrote:

I can understand the lack of real thought on Darwinism, I cannot understand the harshness of any opposing opinion.

This from the person who had to “laugh” at the Thumbers’ “inane pleasure” and called them “nerds” in her last post. Irony, thou art toast.

Unless Donna wasn’t just displaying horrible grammar and actually did mean that she can’t understand the harshness of those who oppose the theory of evolution.…

(Next time, use “harshness toward,” not “harshness of,” sweetie).

““Darwin’s theories on evolution are not the only theories of evolution - they’re just the only ones that work. If you really knew anything about evolution, you’d know that.””

Many modern mainstream scientists have challenged Darwin’s theories if you knew anything about evolution you would know that.

Bobby said:

“Are modern vaccines and antibiotics merely “theoretical” by your reasoning? How do you think that modern medical technology comes about? Lucky guesses? Wrong - through our understanding of evolution a la Darwin. If it weren’t for Darwin’s theories on evolution, we wouldn’t have those modern medications.”

A person can reject Darwinism and still accept evolution. Why does this non-sequitur keep coming up?

The very example you quoted tells us why, “common descent” isn’t enough to explain and describe such adaptation. In fact, religious evolution ideas such as ladder theory prohibits such phenomena.

You must have a specific and detailed theory to be useful in modern medicin when describing such things as antibiotic resistance development and counter measures to it. Such fallacious theories like Lamarckian transmutation doesn’t cut it.

““Notice your question at the end there? You seem to be making the label ‘evolution’ interchangeable with the label ‘Darwinism’. Maybe you could clarify this for us?””

No the terms evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous. That is why I stated that a person can accept evolution as a fact and reject Darwinism.

Bobby said:

Many modern mainstream scientists have challenged Darwin’s theories if you knew anything about evolution you would know that.

If you knew anything about evolution science you would know that is false.

But go ahead, reference those “Many modern mainstream scientists”. And remember, the DI list is useless here as there aren’t any evolutionary biologists in it and not any mainstream biologists either. [Sorry Bobby, you opened your own hatch here; remember that we are discussing evolution science, so you have to provide mainstream biologists and preferably those who you argue “still accept evolution” while denying its theory.]

Gould for one and many others.

Donna wrote:

A life that is strictly based on concrete evidence is no life at all. It is merely an existence.

This must be another one of those opinions that “is not supposed to be scrutinized.” Kind of like my opinion that Donna is lying moron.

Except that I can actually back up my opinion with evidence, of course…

Dear Bobby:

You are misinterpreting Gould; a trait that’s all too common with creationists including yourself. What Gould said was that the Modern Synthesis - contemporary evolutionary theory - was incomplete. He recognized the importance of Natural Selection, but also argued that there other important mechanisms involved in evolution, such as insights being gleamed from evolutionary developmental biology (“Evo - Devo”) and the fact that morphological stasis is a common trait present in the metazoan fossil record.

Why don’t you devote your time to learning something about real science such as contemporary evolutionary biology, instead of indulging in “quote mining” and making inane assertions of one of the most thoughtful thinkers in evolutionary biology in the past fifty years.

Meanwhile I trust you’ll continue enjoying your membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

John Kwok said:

Dear Bobby:

You are misinterpreting Gould; a trait that’s all too common with creationists including yourself. What Gould said was that the Modern Synthesis - contemporary evolutionary theory - was incomplete. He recognized the importance of Natural Selection, but also argued that there other important mechanisms involved in evolution, such as insights being gleamed from evolutionary developmental biology (“Evo - Devo”) and the fact that morphological stasis is a common trait present in the metazoan fossil record.

Why don’t you devote your time to learning something about real science such as contemporary evolutionary biology, instead of indulging in “quote mining” and making inane assertions of one of the most thoughtful thinkers in evolutionary biology in the past fifty years.

Meanwhile I trust you’ll continue enjoying your membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

Well I think YOU should learn about real science. And just because I do not believe in Darwin means I am a ‘creationist’.

First of all you have completely missed Gould’s main objection to Darwinism.

And I hope you enjoy your membership in the “Just Plain Ignorant Wanna Be Scientist Club”

Please read Gould. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Bobby,

Do you really think tthat Gould had a problem with Darwin? Do you think that Gould did not believe in common descent? You do know that Gould had some very harsh words for those who tried to use his words as support for creationism don’t you?

Now, do you have a problem with common descent? Do you have a problem with punctuated equilibrium? Do you have a problem with Darwin or Gould? If you don’t want to be labelled a creationist, don’t use old discredited creationist arguments. I would recommend reading the Talk Origins article of this topic, it might clear up some confusion. Oh and by the way, trying to quote mine Gould isn’t going to work either.

Bobby said:

No the terms evolution and Darwinism are not synonymous. That is why I stated that a person can accept evolution as a fact and reject Darwinism.

NO. There is no “Darwinism” any more than there is “Newtonism”, “Einsteinism” and “Watson & Crickism” there is just evolution, physics, relativity and genetics.

“Darwinism” is just a creationist bogeyman, whipped up because IDiots can’t fathom (or won’t admit) the idea that science is not a religion and has no holy books or holy prophets. How can they admit that? They can only combat science if they can reduce it to a religion, otherwise, it plays out of their league.

So I’ll neatly wrap a little heresy for you Bobby. Darwin was a brilliant guy who put a couple of pieces into the puzzle, stepped back and yelled “Eureka! it’s a duck!”.

Past that, he really didn’t know diddly squat. How could he? In 1850 there was nothing to know, DNA wouldn’t be discovered for 100 years. Then he died (a happy, but confused, Christian, BTW). He was not resurrected.

Then, for the next 160 years other people proved his ideas, because his ideas were demonstrably correct. Since he was the first one to see the solution in the puzzle, the duck is often named after him. That’s it.

Ironically, since Darwin knew so little about how evolution actually works, his theory of natural selection is now seen as more of a first approximation, and the term “Darwinian Evolution” has come to mean something less than a full description of the entire solution, much like “Newtonian physics” specifically refers to a subset of physics that excludes later advances in relativity and quantum mechanics.

Calling evolution “Darwinism” is like calling Hero the father of the steam locomotive - technically true, I suppose, but only if you ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who have contributed to the art over the years.

Oh wait, silly me, I forgot, that’s what creationists do - ignore things.

Please read Gould. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Chuckle. Folks, here we have the quintessential case of a swine before pearls. Like someone who just learned how to count, telling a mathematician he doesn’t know what he’s talking about for multiplying, a technique still beyond the ken of the student.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Timothy Sandefur published on April 27, 2008 7:28 PM.

Webtwopointohifications was the previous entry in this blog.

A Blood Libel on Our Civilization is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter