A blogger wrote:
- “I think the point is that the truth seems to be a problem for Harvard — that is, the truth in the hands of the wrong people.”
- No kidding…that animation is all over the internet and on youtube of all places. Harvard didn’t seem the least bit concerned until an ID proponent showed it.
- Truth is, that when people really contemplate the inner life of a cell, you cannot miss the design….*that’s what worries them*. 
Could be a calculated act
After soaking this all in for a day, I think it is obvious that this is part of Expelled’s “baiting” of the Darwinist establishment. Just look at how quickly P-Zed took the bait for the private screening and the conference call. Same with Dawkins. Now XVIVO has taken the bait.
This is all one big marketing strategy by Expelled, and it has worked spectacularly. 
Response to the film as an illustration of the film's point
Those trying to stop this film accused its producers of fraudulence in obtaining interviews, hypocrisy, plagiarism, and copyright infringement. They have attacked the issuers of license for music used, “informed” Harvard about the video, threatened legal action, advocated sneaking in, advocated bootlegging the film, written to try to dissuade theatres from showing it, etc. I kept having visions of roadblocks set up to inspect the tire-pressure and tail lights of the trucks transporting the film to theatres.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)
Copyright violations to make a point are still copyright violations
It may be part of a "stellar marketing strategy!" by Premise Media, but it's still copyright infringement. Especially "Imagine," which I know was without Ono's permission. Sometimes the truth is ugly, Ed, but lo! it will set you free.-Chimera1 14:56, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- The legal issue involved is how many seconds can be used in a documentary; I don't think the law is clear on that.
- The moral issue is academic freedom. The motivation of these "infringement" reports is not so much to ensure that copyright owners get all the money they deserve, but to suppress the message of the film - which, ironically, is that Darwinsts suppress all criticism of their ideas. --Ed Poor Talk 14:59, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- I think the moral issue here is that the producers of Expelled are ina venture aimed at making a profit, so if they are earning revenues from the film they owe royalties on any copyrighted material used, or the permission of the copyright holders to use the material royalty-free. The producers of the movie may feel they are entitled to use this material because it's for a cause they believe in, but they're still charging admission. As I recall, "Thou shalt not steal" is a moral principle, too. --DinsdaleP 00:39, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not aware that "academic freedom" is a defense to copyright infringement! Further, that legal issue is in fact settled. Although it depends upon the nature of the use of the "seconds," a copyright violation can cease to be de minimis from a use of as few as 60 seconds of video/audio. Would you like to submit a reading plan for Title 17 of the US Code? I can suggest you start with ss 106-07.-Chimera1 15:02, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- I didn't say the two issues were related.
- When you come back from your block, perhaps you will expand upon the legal in's and out's of copyright law. Some laws are clear cut, but there are judicial interpretations, legal precedents, etc. --Ed Poor Talk 15:09, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- Ed, I'm happy to expand upon copyright law, but you can't expect me to educate you for the claims that you assert. The proper response to me calling you out on copyright law is for you to learn where or if you went wrong, not for you to block me and then command me address our differences in a substantive article, when the issue could be resolved here, between us, with a minimum of transaction costs, if you simply educated yourself before you spoke.-Chimera1 20:56, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I can. This web site is an educational resource. We do little else but write articles to save readers the trouble of sifting through all the stuff on the web. If you can explain copyright to me in a few words so I don't have to read 5 books, that would be a big help.
I'm not really claiming anything, and this is not a debate. This page is discussing how to improve the Premise Media article. The discussion above is about the controversy over their use of licensed music (from the rock group that changed their mind), unlicensed music (Yoko Ono's lawyers haven't yet said that they'll sue) and some more vague legal posturing over the "look and feel" of some animation they did.
If you know anything about this, stick around and correct any mistakes you see. Meanwhile, I suggest you take a humble attitude, as we have a policy around here that volunteers must let others order them around. See "teamwork" here. --Ed Poor Talk 21:23, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- Fair, but until I explain to you what copyright law looks like in a few words, don't make outrageously partisan claims without support and block people for calling you out on it! Teamwork ;-)-Chimera1 21:29, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
The "Imagine flap" section is a response to something that it not explained. Philip J. Rayment 07:34, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
I've added some background around the other editor's orginal post. --DinsdaleP 15:59, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
- Has the Imagine issue been resolved?
- --UnicornTapestry 09:48, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. Yoko had her butt handed to her in court. Jinxmchue 10:02, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for the answer. We ought to provide a reference link for that if there's not one already. I had a lot of issues with Expelled, but Imagine seemed fair game since Lennon himself had opened the door.
- --UnicornTapestry 19:44, 31 July 2008 (EDT)