Talk:Copyright controversies of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Smart Move

Needed its own article. Saksjn (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. --Ali'i 14:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. This sub-article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving long-term. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't done with a proper summary, I've outlined the main issues concisely but if this sub-article is removed the main article will need much more detail . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings. I think this might have more potential than the other daughter article. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Injunction

I have raised the issue of how to present the injunction against Premise Media here, just in case anyone ends up here who wasn't over at the main article. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko's motivation behind the lawsuit

It seems from the WSJ that the motivation behind this lawsuit is to emphatically distance herself from the film (not so much to prevent the film from being spread or wanting money for it):

The flap concerns the film's use of the song "Imagine," by the late John Lennon. Bloggers had accused Ms. Ono, Mr. Lennon's wife, of selling out by licensing the song to the filmmakers. In fact, her lawyers say, she never granted permission for its use.

Should something about this background be mentioned? Merzul (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko ono turned down.

[1]--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not merge this with the actual article on expelled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

These lawsuits went nowhere and affected nothing. The main article about the film already has a section about these issues and they are much more clean and concise. This article is just a brutal mess and completely unnecessary. Seregain (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]