Yoko ono vs premise media

No Intelligence Allowed Film "

Yoko ono vs premise media

She is the widow of the late John Lennon, who was one of the most successful p. He is also a renewal claimant on the copyright registration for the Song. Defendant Premise Media Corporation is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.

Defendant Rocky Mountain Pictures, Inc.

Lennon's widow Yoko Ono Lennon and sons Sean and Julian, along with EMI Blackwood Music, filed suit on April 22, claiming that Premise Media's unauthorized use of "Imagine" violates copyright and trademark law. Yoko Ono vs. Premise Media. Topics: Fair use, Works of Yoko Ono Vs Feminist art Feminist art is a specific art form that has been dedicated to explore and examine the explicit forms of physical violence, pain and anguish experienced by women in a world dominated by the patriarchal system. Awakened to the consciousness of misogyny, . Lennon v. Premise Media. Yoko Ono and EMI sued a documentary filmmaker for using a short clip from the John Lennon song “Imagine” as part of a critique of the lyrics of the song. We defended the filmmaker and successfully argued that the use of the copyrighted song was fair use.

This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U. The claims herein arise under Sections, and of the Copyright Act 17 U. This Court also has jurisdiction based upon the diversity of the parties 28 U.

John Lennon was a musician, artist and political activist whose status as an artistic genius and musical icon of the twentieth century cannot be disputed.

Lennon et al v. Premise Media Corporation, L.P. et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings

His achievements as a musician, writer, artist and humanitarian are legendary and were cut short by his tragic and shocking assassination in The Imagine album and single have sold multi-millions of copies worldwide. Simply, Imagine is one of the most recognizable songs in the world.

Accordingly, the Song has become closely associated with and is synonymous with John Lennon and associated with Plaintiffs. This was the first time that Plaintiffs became aware of the Film or the use of the Song in the Film.

Defendants are the producers, distributors or otherwise involved with and profit from the Film.

Join our Mailing List:

None of the Plaintiffs granted permission for the use of the Song in the Film. On April 18,at a public showing of the Film at Rolling credits at the end of the movie state ownership, credit and permissions information for each such song licensed.

Members of the consuming public are likely to perceive this credit information in the Film as suggesting that the Song was properly licensed. Upon information and belief, Defendants have also intentionally and willfully used the Song in a fashion that suggests to the public that such use was authorized, endorsed or sponsored by the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

The Song was originally registered on September 15, and bears registration number EU, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit B. Defendants have no license or any other form of permission to copy, duplicate, or claim copyright ownership in the Song, or to sell or distribute any portion of the Song.

Such infringement is willful pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.Justia has made the Yoko Ono Lennon v Premise Media court documents available. Congratulations to the Stanford Fair Use Project for its Fair Use defense.

Lennon's widow Yoko Ono Lennon and sons Sean and Julian, along with EMI Blackwood Music, filed suit on April 22, claiming that Premise Media's unauthorized use of "Imagine" violates copyright and trademark law.

Yoko ono vs premise media

certificate of service of notice of premise media corporation, l.p., c&s production l.p. d/b/a rampant films, premise media distribution l.p., and rocky mountain pictures, inc.s motion to dismiss, and the memorandum of law in support of defendants motion to dismiss served on dorothy m.

weber on june 20, Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono Lennon and sons Sean and Julian, along with EMI Blackwood Music, filed suit on April 22, claiming that Premise Media’s unauthorized .

Fair Use Project to Represent Premise Media Against Yoko Ono Lennon and EMI Records By Anthony Falzone on May 14, at pm Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial film about a contentious issue: whether proponents of intelligent design are being unfairly silenced in academia and beyond.

Aug 10,  · yoko ono lennon, sean ono lennon, julian lennon, and emi blackwood vs premise media corp., l.p., c&s production l.p. d/b/a rampant films, premise media .

Lennon v. Premise Media - Wikisource, the free online library