Expelled without a license
Word on the street is starting to trickle in that the popular music was not licensed:
* John Lennon’s “Imagine” was definitely used without permission. The Lennon estate + EMI are suing. (See Reuters, 4/23 (link from pharyngula); the NYT, 4/24; and Paste Magazine. (I can just picture the graphic on The Daily Show: “Ono you di’n't!”)
* I’m also hearing that The Killers (“Personal Jesus”) didn’t authorize. (See comments on earlier posts.) … And now I’m hearing that they did authorize, but were duped into doing so. See the playlist.
Updates as available.
4/28 update: It looks to me as if copyright infringement was at least anticipated and planned for, and the case that the copyright infringement was an intentional gambit by Premise Media to inspire litigation is considerably stronger: Check out this press release by Premise. They’re trumpeting the litigation, and note that they reference it as litigation by the “beloved Yoko Ono.” Tapping into popular dislike of Yoko Ono — which had significant racist and sexist over-, under-, and in-the-middle-tones — Premise Media continues to demonstrate that they are a class act. Their behavior reflects on the religion they profess and promote, of course.
Other discussions on the issue:
* metamagician
* Lippard Blog
algorithmically similar posts:
» “Expelled” music licensed or not?, 2008-03-27 (score:32)» fantasy writer corrects common misconceptions about plagiarism, 2004-12-22 (score:18)
» Expelled copyright infringement, cont’d, 2008-04-16 (score:18)
» music inspired by Expelled, 2008-04-18 (score:17)
