Ben Stein: Yoko Ono On Line One (And The Killers Are On Hold)

UPDATE AT END RE: The Killers

Before I discuss whether Ben Stein, Walt Ruloff, and everyone behind the movie Expelled are not only crooks but liars, they are, please allow me the opportunity to apologize again to Mrs. Lennon regarding the assumptions (since retracted) that I made in my post here on the Huffington Post earlier this week.

My anger and frustration in that post was the result not just of my indignant mystification of why Mrs. Lennon would allow the song in the movie when it is a tool of group eager to have creationism taught in our public schools as science, but also my lifelong respect for John Lennon, Mrs. Lennon and their work for peace. I felt betrayed by someone I admire so much, and I let my emotions get the best of me. I am sorry.

I have re-directed my anger.

I hope you will too.

First of all, it is now clear, crystal clear, that there are some clear facts at play here.

The first is that Expelled while by all reviews a truly horribly bad movie was produced by professionals. It is the production of Premise Media a company headed by a man named Walt Ruloff who lives outside of Seattle (anyone know Walt?) Mr. Ruloff made over $100 million selling a software company to Microsoft (read: not complete idiot) and he and his company has plenty of movie-making experience.

The movie also involves a number of other players with industry experience:

Produced by Premise Media, Expelled, in theaters February 2008, is being marketed by Motive Entertainment, the company that has spearheaded significant Hollywood blockbusters, including The Passion of the Christ, Polar Express and The Chronicles of Narnia. Rocky Mountain Pictures, an established distribution company, which has enjoyed numerous box-office successes, will distribute the film.

My conclusion from this research, and perhaps you will agree with me, is that these people would know that to use a song, any song, in a movie, there is a legal requirement to contact the owners of the song.

There also is the moral requirement -- thou shalt not steal.

I never would have presumed that a group of people with movie experience would just steal music and then use it, but they did. This makes them crooks.

Here's what one commenter with some movie experience at another blog thinks and I guess this is what has happened.

I work in the film industry and know that although these guys may be dumb, they're not dumb enough to think this would fly.

They didn't license this on purpose - it's a costly publicity stunt. I'm sure they have a huge line item category called 'lawsuits' in their budget. There is no such thing as a "momentary use" and anyone in the biz knows this. Every film is required to carry E&O (errors & omission) insurance. It usually covers the film up to 1 million dollars but you must provide a statement saying that you have obtained all of the necessary clearances so that your coverage is clean and that there are no exclusions. No distributor (foreign, domestic, TV, dvd sales, etc.) will pick up your film if there are exclusions. I just wonder if the insurance would even kick in on this kind of thing if you blatantly didn't obtain the license. I have never had that issue because I, like everyone else in this business, practice good ethics when it comes to licensing copyrighted material. We license, pay and credit the artists their due. I thought Christians were supposed to be honest? I will do some digging with insurance companies and see what the ramifications are.

In fact, the three producers of the movie have admitted they used the song without permission.

This from the Wall Street Journal:

"In a written statement, the film's three producers -- Walt Ruloff, John Sullivan and Logan Craft -- acknowledged that they did not seek permission, but they called the use "momentary." "After seeking the opinion of legal counsel it was seen as a First Amendment issue and protected under the fair use doctrine of free speech," the statement said. A spokeswoman said under 25 seconds of the song are used in the movie."

Momentary. That's what Walt, John and Logan call stealing, momentary.

Count slowly to 25 seconds and imagine looking at pictures of Nazi death camps and hearing John Lennon (evidently where they use the song in the movie.)

Momentary.

Which brings me to Ben Stein.

Ben Stein works in Hollywood. Ben Stein knows the rules. Ben Stein has been proud to go on tv show after radio show and print interview after that and discuss the movie.

I would like to ask Ben Stein how he feels about using John Lennon's song without permission.

I would like Ben Stein to read the following note from Mrs. Lennon's lawyers and give me his intelligent take on it.

Ms. Ono's lawyer, Jonas Herbsman, of Shukat, Arrow, Hafer, Weber & Herbsman, said in an interview Wednesday: "It was not licensed."

Was it an honest mistake Ben? If so, pull the song.

If the song runs when the movie opens tomorrow, we'll know the truth about you Ben, you too Walt, Logan, and John.

I'm awful glad you believe in hell Ben, because my understanding is that's where thieves go. At least Walt, John and Logan will be there with you.

I apologized to Mrs. Lennon for my mistake and have done my best to correct my error.

Will you do the same?

UPDATE:

In turns out The Killers were duped into having their music and they are mad about it.

Here's the message from their board:

"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."

Comments

[Freedomfinder]

Well let's just see if Ms.Ono's Lawyers will assist her in getting "Ben Stein's Money."

[5150]

Duped? The Killers are Mormon so they are credulous chumps. Yoko to blame? Hu knows. Yet I blame Yoo. Between one Ting and another, you could believe any Ting. I blame Yoo.

[Dani77]

Actually only the singer is Mormon...

[Dani77]

Here is an update that the head administrator at the official Killers forum posted today, about their song "All These Things That I've Done" being licensed for use in the film. Apparently the band's management and the band itself were highly misled about the nature of the film:

"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."

[montemalone]

These "christian" movie makers are just selfish, hateful, greedy bastards. Just like the "christian" preachers on TV. They'll say anything they can to make a buck.
How anybody can fall for religion in the first place is beyond me.

[BarryChamplain]

If the lawyers and publicity people for Ms. Ono Lennon were smart, when the inevitable calls and e-mails arrive, requesting comment (they do; whenever a showbiz lawsuit is filed, there are actually programs which trigger alerts to business reporters!), there should be an ABSOLUTE STONEWALLING.

By which I mean: don't answer the e-mails, hang up on the reporters. Starve the beast, as they say. Give them nothing except what's a matter of public record.

The story will die and the producers will find it impossible to milk.

And having said that, Mr. Herbsman should have kept his mouth shut and let a lawsuit do all the talking.

[BMSstudy]

So, the producers (I see Stein is not one of them,) looked for legal advice and say the advice given to them was that the use, since so short, would not require payment/royalties/etc... You start off the blog by aplogizing for an error but immediately jump on the throat of the producers for an error of judgement (and to be honest, a claim from John's estate and either the producers paying or losing in court would make the arguement moot if it was a mistake or not) on their part. What happens if the producers say they are sorry and voluntarily suggest/agree to compensation?

Are you not a liar because you retracted your original falsehood?
Is there a time limit on retractions that make it OK versus a lie (and thus the person a liar)?


"I apologized to Mrs. Lennon for my mistake and have done my best to correct my error." What other items are blantant abuses for others, but you can get away with by saying this? You should have no problem with others calling you a liar (and probably going to hell, along with the producers and Ben,) because thier definition excludes your understanding that saying you are sorry absolves you from the item/sin.

[dwire]

The book "Strawberry Fields Forever" by Vic Garbarini,Brian Cullman and Barbara Graustark contain interviews with John and Yoko in which they express their views on the ownership of songs-it's quite interesting-they said it was crazy to think you could own songs. Not that this in any way absolves what the movie co. has done, but John and Yoko fans would find this thoughtful reading.

[distant mirror]

Although I understand how you could be upset, Fair Use does make it possible for the filmmakers to use both clips and music if they show their first amendment rights are being violated. Robert Greenwald used this beautifully when making his film OUT FOXED.

[rfshunt]

Not so fast, distant mirror. I am not a lawyer - but my work often involves getting clearance for music and other copyrighted material. The Fair Use clause of the copyright act of 1976 does not make reference to violation of first amendment rights.

Here's the clause:

"§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Nothing in there at all about violation of free speech. The producers of OUTFOXED clearly had the right to reproduce material that they were commenting on and criticising. Expelled is in no way a critical or scholarly examination of the music of Beatles. Claiming fair use, which their "momentary" justification seems to indicate they are claiming, is a huge stretch, and I doubt it will hold up.

[distant mirror]

First of all Fair Use is a defensive it is not a law

I wasn't saying they were right. I was saying that is their argument. Have you seen it? You can't really make a judgement until you see it. Depending on the circumstance you can also Fair Use if there is a monetary restriction. They could say the clip was not in their budget. as Kirby Dick did in his last film.

[Rrhain]

There is a difference between commentary and artistic use, though.

If I'm going to provide commentary about your words, then it is fair use to quote your words in order to provide context for my subsequent commentary.

But if I am going to use your words as background for an artistic claim, then I need to license them.

[cobraxus]

in the 4th century AD St.Augustine of Hippo wrote "As Christians it's not neccessary for us to believe God created the heavens and the earth in seven days.As Christians we believe God is the nebula from which all things come."In the 5th century AD showing Jesus on the cross with one foot over the other held down by a single nail was considered the greatest act of heresay.Michael Servetus of Villanova was burned at the stake for(among other things)suggesting the heart pumped blood through the body.Stating that the Earth was spherical and revolved around the sun(rather than the sun,moon and stars revolving around us)was nothing short of blasphemy.And now we have this.Intelligent Design isn't science.It's not even a theosophical concept,it's just backwoods creationism dressed up to look and sound smart(which it isn't).These people,Ben Stein included are dangerous.They believe God wants them to beat down the heathen scientists when in fact they're the ones denying the nature of God's creation because it doesn't conform to their idealogical viewpoint.As a side note Ben Stein positively worships Dick Nixon even though Nixon himself was openly anti-semetic.nice

[SamThornton]

Another chapter in the evolution of creationism. Or has creationism progressed by the intercession of a divine being? Who's to say? Ben Stein, maybe? He has a degree in...?

Anyhoo, WikiPedia has a rather exhaustive article on the production and marketing details, in re "Expelled."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

[SamThornton]

Oops. That URL won't fly. Try this instead: http://tinyurl.com/37sb2s

[Readbetweentheelevens]

"Imagine all the people living life in peace."

Well what's wrong with using the song anywho? People don't pay for music anymore. Why should the film industry?

The Winston Lennon estate earns 20 million a year and now wants money for a song about living in peace -- for a 25 second use of the song?

2 years ago Yoko allowewd the sale of Lennon dolls. If the film maker had filmed the doll singing (using Ben Stein's voice) would that also have allowed Yoko's lawyers to put their hands in the pockets of the film maker?

Who cares.

[DanBest]

I do. Lennon was gunned down by deranged christian. Religious fanatics have always hated the part about "imagine there's no heaven" and Lennon paid for that sentiment with his life.

Had you read this post you would have perhaps noticed this little thing called a copyright. Films have to pay for the use of music. There is no "fair use" when you are making a product like a film for profit.

"allowed Yoko's lawyers to put their hands in the pockets of the film maker?"

The filmaker didn't have to use this song. I would argue that thieir use of the song is meant to denigrate Lennon for having the audacity to also say "imagine there's no religion" Lennon already paid for that one with his life. Why should he pay again in death to the same people who wanted him dead in the first place. They are metaphorically digging up his corpse and defiling him.


It's theft plain an simple and they aren't using the song in good faith. They are not paying homage to Lennon's words.

[Clinton]

But haven't you heard? Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. Says so on the bumper stickers you see on their SUVs as they cut you off on the freeway. They can do anything they want. And they support the troops, too! (not that they'd actually enlist themselves). So there!

[babylonandon]

If you only knew how high both the absolute and percentage numbers of Christians that make up the military you wouldn't make comments like that last part. If I had the article handy (or the time to look it up - I'm on a 10 minute break from the job) I'd show you that the percentage of Christians in the military is higher than the population as a whole by a lot.

Given your "love" of Christians (and not to mention the military), the fact that military service actually fits in with much of the Christian community and their psychology should actually fulfill many of your assumptions against both of them.

Signed...an Evangelical Veteran.

[Fightforyourrights]

Hmmmm . . . military service "actually fits in with much of the 'Christian' community and their psychology . . . " [my quotes added around Xtian]

Well you have confirmed much of what I believed about Xtians - at least the ones who profess to be such in this nation. All about turning the other cheek while you napalm and blow brown folks to hell?

Tell me, Who would/did Jesus Bomb, Mr. Evangelical Veteran? How many countries did he invade to defend corporate interests, depose "unfriendly regimes and "secure resources"?

Are you proud of what your military is being used for? If so I get it makes baby jesus cry.

[mcthfg]

Which part of Thou Shalt Not Kill don't you understand? Is there a part I missed where it says that everyone BUT christian soldiers aren't allowed to kill?

Don't you even pretend to read the book?

[elbzee]

I don't find the statement there are high numbers of Christians that make up the military in the least surprising. Is it an incorrect assumption that most armies' origins are within religions wars?

[Economike]

Look this is simple, Christianity is a pacifistic philosophy, anybody who's profession involves killing cannot be a real christian. sorry.

[James Boyce - Huffpost Blogger]

This is the woman in charge of marketing the film.

Lesley Burbridge-Bates

Motive Entertainment Partnership

615.567.6201 office

615.414.7573 cell.

[e-mail]

[jvarga]

I want to make some parallel between their fraud in using a song without permission and the fraud that is "intelligent design." But words fail me.

Instead, I'll commend you on rectifying your mistake.