WannaBeGeekGirl's Journal: Fair use clause

This article about a U.S. District Judge finding against Yoko Ono based on the "fair use" clause jumped out at me. (How unfortunately confusing that in this case the judge shares a last name with the star of the documentary--don't mind me, I have memory problems so I notice names more than the average person.) I am very fond of the song and its name in particular. As a musician that doesn't believe in free downloading without the permission of the creator as well as a fan of the documentary (generic, not this specific title) this is a ride the fence decision for me!

Someone told me once, "Fair is where you show pigs in the fall." That advice made my life easier.

I'm guessing it is not just about free use, but that his music is going to be associated with an idea. Sure, I believe that most of us are old enough and smart enough to make up our own minds. I have no idea what amount Ms. Ono and the rest of the party were suing for (if any) beyond stopping the event. I am the first to admit I don't keep tabs on their financial status or habits. Perhaps it is the idealist in me to hope that the goal of the lawsuit was to separate one idea from another. Regardless of the terms and with respect to the family I make my next comments. I wouldn't want the song in the movie either. However, I believe in freedom of speech. Still, I assume these guys are charging people to show the movie and that is why it ends up in court?

Is this legal decision involving a very profound piece of music mixed with the context of documentary another reminder that even in the current US political climate the First Amendment will still ring out loud and clear? Perhaps the "fair use" clause is an indirect way there or a fluke loophole? This is where I would welcome intelligent discussion. I find it (the clause) showing up interesting. Perhaps it is invoked more often. It didn't help my cause when I made a video commentary about hate with a popular song as background music--my video still got pulled from youtube for "music copyright."

Fair Use

[johndiii]

The Reuters article does not give much in the way of details. This article [businesswire.com] has a little more. The claimed violation stems from the use of a fifteen-second clip to criticize the anti-religious message of the song. The ruling concerns only the denial of the requested injunction to stop distribution of the movie; the suit will go on, although the plaintiffs seem very unlikely to prevail.

The reason that it's in court is that the plaintiffs disagree with the political message of the movie. It's nothing more

Re:

[WannaBeGeekGirl]

Thanks, for the more detailed article. It definitely goes more in depth about both the lawsuit and the documentary.

As for the deeper meaning of Lennon's song--I was very young when he wrote that and not really around for most of his life. I interpret it very differently than most people. The same thing happens with U2's "One" which is actually a song more of my generation--yet I find myself still the odd woman out. Because I seem to have a different point of view on music and art I choose to agree to

Wouldn't worry about it too much

[Captain Splendid]

I've already lost count of the amount of times I've heard a pastor, or equivalent, use John Lennon's Imagine as part of a speech, sermon or homily, always, of course, omitting the less "appropriate" lines of the song. Cracks me up every time.