Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Today we filed our oppositions to the preliminary injunction motions filed by Yoko Ono Lennon (federal case) and EMI Records (state case). They are attached below.

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. It has been shown on more than 1000 theater screens nationwide, and its producers have drawn praise from some circles and scorching criticism from others. Right or wrong, good or bad, it's a film that explores important issues of free speech, faith and science.

Yoko Ono Lennon has sued the film's producers in federal court because the film uses a fifteen second clip of the John Lennon song "Imagine." EMI, the record label that asserts ownership in the recording of song, has also sued the producers in state court. Both seek an immediate injunction forcing the removal of "Imagine" from the film.

The trial of J.K. Rowling's copyright claims against RDR Books concluded last Wednesday after three days of testimony. Full transcripts of each day's proceedings are attached below. The Hon. Robert P. Patterson will decide the case following post-trial submissions from the parties.

The trial generated a flurry of interest from press and public alike, and was covered extensively by the New York Times as well as the Wall Street Journal and other major news outlets. Here are links to some of the coverage by these, and other, publications:

The Court has put this case on the proverbial fast track by combining the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion filed by Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers with the trial on the merits. The trial is scheduled to begin on April 14 at 9:30 am.

The trial will be open to the public, and will be conducted before the Honorable Robert P. Patterson in courtroom 24 of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007.

We agreed to help represent RDR Books in its litigation against J.K. Rowling because she asserts rights that go far beyond those the Copyright Act gives her, and in doing so threatens to stifle the long-established rights of others to discuss her work, or that of other authors.

In Saturday's New York Times, business columnist Joe Nocera shines a light on exactly this point. In doing so, he provides a fantastic explanation of how important this case is, and why it's part of a larger, and very important, conflict.

Read the article here.

On Friday, we filed our opposition to J.K. Rowling's motion to enjoin publication of the Lexicon. In our brief, we explain both why the Lexicon is the sort of important and transformative work that fair use has long protected, and why Ms. Rowling is not entitled to the injunction she seeks.