Support NeoGAF

[Pastry]

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...oys-fight-online-video-parody-of-girls/?_r=1&

GoldieBlox had filed a lawsuit on Thursday that asserted its right to use the music in the video, which has gone viral with more than eight million views. It said in the suit that it “created its parody video specifically to comment on the Beastie Boys song, and to further the company’s goal to break down gender stereotypes.”

But the Beastie Boys, in the letter to GoldieBlox, said the video was essentially part of a commercial enterprise and “an advertisement that is designed to sell a product,” for which the band says it does not allow its music to be used.

Like many of the millions of people who have seen your toy commercial “GoldieBlox, Rube Goldberg & the Beastie Boys,” we were very impressed by the creativity and the message behind your ad.

We strongly support empowering young girls, breaking down gender stereotypes and igniting a passion for technology and engineering.

As creative as it is, make no mistake, your video is an advertisement that is designed to sell a product, and long ago, we made a conscious decision not to permit our music and/or name to be used in product ads.

When we tried to simply ask how and why our song “Girls” had been used in your ad without our permission, YOU sued US.

Every girl I know has been posting this video on Facebook for the past week. It took me a while to wrap my head around the fact that the toy company is suing Beastie Boys for simply mentioning that it was copyright infringement. Can't see this case going very far.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Commercial isn't even that original or well-executed, but that's the way things go.

 

[TheKaeptain]

Beasie Boys

 

[Naked Snake]

Link to video?

 

[Slayven]

Looks like the toy company going to get sabotaged.

 

[Cyan]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

In any case, it's pretty bizarre that they'd try to sue the Beastie Boys. What are they even suing for?

 

[SteveWinwood]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

In any case, it's pretty bizarre that they'd try to sue the Beastie Boys. What are they even suing for?

I think fair use will get you pretty far. Wierd Al always got permission because he was a nice guy.

They're suing for attention.

 

[Chairhome]

I saw this video last week, and its interesting (since I have a daughter and I am an engineer myself, it piqued my interest). But is this in the same vein that Robin Thicke's people sued Marvin Gaye's estate as a pre-emptive defense?

 

[Pastry]

Link to video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFpe3Up9T_g

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

That Robin Thicke guy sued Marvin Gaye's family as well when he was caught ripping off Marvin.

Must be something in the water.

 

[border]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

You do not need permission to make a parody song. But Weird Al always asks anyways, because it's not worth the hassle of getting in a drawn-out lawsuit if you tick someone off. You can win a lawsuit in court with a parody defense, but just going to court can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[MetatronM]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

In any case, it's pretty bizarre that they'd try to sue the Beastie Boys. What are they even suing for?

To just do a straight up parody for the sake of doing it? Probably not. For commercial purposes, I would think so, yeah.

 

[The_Hitcher89]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

In any case, it's pretty bizarre that they'd try to sue the Beastie Boys. What are they even suing for?

I recall Weird Al asking for permission as a matter of manners rather than a legally required thing. Think there's a couple of cases where its been refused and he's honoured that refusal

 

[Alucrid]

why is the toy itself in pink and teal pastel colors?

 

[lenovox1]

I think fair use will get you pretty far. Wierd Al always got permission because he was a nice guy.

They're suing for attention.

They're suing as a pre-emptive measure before a takedown request is issued.

 

[Slayven]

To just do a straight up parody for the sake of doing it? Probably not. For commercial purposes, I would think so, yeah.

Yeah that is where I think they will lose.

 

[TheKaeptain]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

In any case, it's pretty bizarre that they'd try to sue the Beastie Boys. What are they even suing for?

Parody is a part of fair use.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

 

[linkboy]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

In any case, it's pretty bizarre that they'd try to sue the Beastie Boys. What are they even suing for?

Weird Al asks for permission to stay on the good side of artists, but he doesn't need their permission to do a spoof.

 

[sharkmuncher]

why is the toy itself in pink and teal pastel colors?

That's what I thought.

"We don't need more stereotypical pink toys for girls"

Sells a pink product marketed specifically to girls...

 

[jerry1594]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

In any case, it's pretty bizarre that they'd try to sue the Beastie Boys. What are they even suing for?

I think you need permission from the artist's label but Al always goes and asks the artist too ever since the incident with Coolio

 

[fallengorn]

Edit: Thought this was the earlier thread about this.

 

[Mesoian]

why is the toy itself in pink and teal pastel colors?

Why indeed.

The grand comedy is that if they had simply asked, they probably would have been given permission.

Sueing pre-emptily can be a tactic used to delay the amount of time needed to pull down an offender of a copyright. I assume the tactic they're planning on using is letting this run for two months while dragging their heels for litigation, then once the video has played it's course, they'll drop all charges and pay whatever the record label wants.

Silly, but...whatever.

 

[Host Samurai]

That Robin Thicke guy sued Marvin Gaye's family as well when he was caught ripping off Marvin.

Must be something in the water.

I swear I've never even heard of the dude in my life until the Miley performance

 

[krae_man]

Yeah that is where I think they will lose.

I don't think that matters for Parody. All of Weird Al's songs are for commercial purposes: Sell his albums. I've seen tons of commercials with parody songs in them. Although I have no idea if any of them got permission from the original artist or not.

I think the issue is they use the Beastie Boys name specifically which probably doesn't fall under parody or fair use.

 

[linkboy]

Why indeed.

The grand comedy is that if they had simply asked, they probably would have been given permission.

Sueing pre-emptily can be a tactic used to delay the amount of time needed to pull down an offender of a copyright. I assume the tactic they're planning on using is letting this run for two months while dragging their heels for litigation, then once the video has played it's course, they'll drop all charges and pay whatever the record label wants.

Silly, but...whatever.

The Beastie Boys don't allow their music or likeness to be used it ads.

I don't think that matters for Parody. All of Weird Al's songs are for commercial purposes: Sell his albums.

I think the issue is they use the Beastie Boys name specifically which probably doesn't fall under parody or fair use.

Yep, that's probably what's going to get them.

 

[timetokill]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

In any case, it's pretty bizarre that they'd try to sue the Beastie Boys. What are they even suing for?

IIRC Weird Al simply asked artists if he could do a parody song and only did it if they gave permission. Pretty much everyone did because he's a nice guy. I don't know that he "needed" it per se, if he changed the music enough.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

In any case, it's pretty bizarre that they'd try to sue the Beastie Boys. What are they even suing for?

No, parody is a protected right under Fair Use, even if you do it for commercial purposes, although it can be a factor in determining something isn't a parody at all.

Its probably for injunctive relief to prevent a counter-suit, e.g. an order saying the BB can't sue them.

 

[sharkmuncher]

Why indeed.

The grand comedy is that if they had simply asked, they probably would have been given permission.

Sueing pre-emptily can be a tactic used to delay the amount of time needed to pull down an offender of a copyright. I assume the tactic they're planning on using is letting this run for two months while dragging their heels for litigation, then once the video has played it's course, they'll drop all charges and pay whatever the record label wants.

Silly, but...whatever.

Probably not in this case since the Beastie Boys have always been really vocal about their songs not being used in advertising, as far as it being a part of Adam Yauch's will.

Don't grease my palm with your filthy cash
Multinationals spreading like a rash
I might stick around or I might be a fad
But I won't sell my songs for no TV ad

Cause I'm a specializer, rhyme reviser
Ain't selling out to advertisers
What you get is what you see
And you won't see me out there advertising

 

[Slayven]

I don't think that matters for Parody. All of Weird Al's songs are for commercial purposes: Sell his albums.

I think the issue is they use the Beastie Boys name specifically which probably doesn't fall under parody or fair use.

But the song was created to sell the toys. Their intentions wasn't pure so to speak. but what ever will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[TheKaeptain]

The question comes down to if this is a parody or remix/remake to sell toys.

 

[ukas]

Is that Tim Schafer at the 00:20 mark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AtZfNU3zw

 

[Andrew Korenchkin]

I wonder how many people are still oblivious to the fact that Fight For Your Right is a total joke.

 

[Mesoian]

The Beastie Boys don't allow their music or likeness to be used it ads.

On a corporate level, sure. I'm talking about an actual person inquiry. A proper pitch given to the surviving members instead of their lawyers.

Hell, it's not like the Beastie Boys haven't gone through this themselves due to sampling in the early aughts. A little humanity goes a long way.

But...::Shrugs:: That's not gonna happen NOW.

I wonder how many people are still oblivious to the fact that Fight For Your Right is a total joke.

As many people who know more lyrics of that song than just the hook.

Is that Tim Schafer at the 00:20 mark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AtZfNU3zw

It IS! What's Tim Schafer's relation to all this?

 

[Samara]

why is the toy itself in pink and teal pastel colors?

yeah was about to say. the girl on the box is very princess looking.

 

[Onion_Relish]

Beastie Boys known to let the suit..... DROPPPPPPP

Just kidding, they sue a lot of people

 

[commedieu]

I met some teenagers who had no idea what the fuck jurassic park was.

what demographic are they targeting with the beastie boys? Doesn't seem worth the trouble.

edit; stay off my lawn.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Yeah that is where I think they will lose.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

Commercial parodies can be protected under fair use. It depends on the circumstances, hence the pre-emptive lawsuit. The problem is that they presumably think there will be irreparable damage if they have to take it down pending a lawsuit.

 

[linkboy]

On a corporate level, sure. I'm talking about an actual person inquiry. A proper pitch given to the surviving members instead of their lawyers.

Hell, it's not like the Beastie Boys haven't gone through this themselves due to sampling in the early aughts. A little humanity goes a long way.

But...::Shrugs:: That's not gonna happen NOW.



As many people who know more lyrics of that song than just the hook.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/adam-yauchs-will-prohibits-use-of-his-music-in-ads-20120809

It's in Adam Yauch's will, you really think the other surviving members are going to go against that.

 

[Mesoian]

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/adam-yauchs-will-prohibits-use-of-his-music-in-ads-20120809

It's in Adam Yauch's will, you really think the other surviving members are going to go against that.

I think it would have been worth the discussion, even if the answer was still no. At the very least, it would have prevented a PR shitshow.

 

[megashock5]

That's what I thought.

"We don't need more stereotypical pink toys for girls"

Sells a pink product marketed specifically to girls...

Yep, thought the exact same thing at the end of the ad. Are you hearing your own message?

 

[lenovox1]

The question comes down to if this is a parody or remix/remake to sell toys.

Essentially. From what I've read, the court doesn't care if you would allow your material to be parodied or not, but the element of, "Would this effect the market of the original material?", is still there.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/parody-fair-use-or-copyright-infringement.html

 

[robotzombie]

That Robin Thicke guy sued Marvin Gaye's family as well when he was caught ripping off Marvin.

Must be something in the water.

You mean Robin Thicke?

 

[Salamando]

why is the toy itself in pink and teal pastel colors?

Because it works? Lego designed and released a number of sets for girls in their Lego Friends line. Used the same pastel colors. And it sold like mad.

 

[Mesoian]

Because it works? Lego designed and released a number of sets for girls in their Lego Friends line. Used the same pastel colors. And it sold like mad.

It's simply the irony that we're all rolling around in.

 

[HeySeuss]

Are they suing for a pocket full of shells?

 

[SigSig]

why is the toy itself in pink and teal pastel colors?

Because you gotta start somewhere.

Also, that was pretty stupid by GoldieBlox. The ad itself was great, but c'mon. That was screaming trouble.

 

[Battlezone]

That's what I thought.

"We don't need more stereotypical pink toys for girls"

Sells a pink product marketed specifically to girls...

From the FAQ:

How is GoldieBlox "for" girls?

Our founder, Debbie, spent a year researching gender differences to develop a construction toy that went deeper than just "making it pink" to appeal to girls. She read countless articles on the female brain, cognitive development and children's play patterns. She interviewed parents, educators, neuroscientists and STEM experts. Most importantly, she played with hundreds of kids. Her big "aha"? Girls have strong verbal skills. They love stories and characters. They aren't as interested in building for the sake of building; they want to know why. GoldieBlox stories replace the 1-2-3 instruction manual and provide narrative-based building, centered around a role model character who solves problems by building machines. Goldie's stories relate to girls' lives, have a sense of humor and make engineering fun.

What about boys?

We couldn't be more thrilled to let you in on a little secret: boys love GoldieBlox too...pink ribbon and all! Keep an eye out for male characters in the GoldieBlox line moving forward and remember: everyone is encouraged to discover engineering with Goldie and her friends.

Why pink?

As far as girls loving pink, we aren’t debating that. We believe girls are MORE than just princesses – we’re not saying they should stop dressing up as them. We’d just prefer to see a tool belt thrown in with some tulle. Maybe even a kingdom constructed with pegboards and axles and Nacho too? Watch us as we grow and continue adding colors from all over the rainbow.

.

 

[injurai]

Well outside of the legal arguments surrounding this, I think the video argues a valid point. It's really clever and I think young girls need to be empowered and encouraged to explore things beyond what society markets for them.

My problem is that it takes it one step too far say "that's all we really need is girls." I don't hold it as a huge mark against it. But it seems a lot of pro-woman/girl campaigns pull this card. The quickest way to get ignored by human rights activists is to pull some exclusionary card like that. Especially now that male dispensability is being identified as a primary issue that affects both men and woman in terms of social strata and double-standard.

Video really doesn't seem to do much harm at all. But I can respect the Beastie Boys wanting to control their own works. That Toy Company though is legit bat-shit and seems to be wanting to stir up a shit-storm.

 

[daveo42]

Do you typically need permission from the original artist in order to do a parody song that uses the same music and different lyrics? I vaguely recall from Weird Al stuff that you do. But I'm not a lawyer or anything.

In any case, it's pretty bizarre that they'd try to sue the Beastie Boys. What are they even suing for?

Parody is covered under fair use as long as you can claim that the parody will in no way impact the marketability of the original. Expanded precedent came into effect thanks to 2 Live Crew being sued by Acuff-Rose Music over the parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman".

Wiki article on Supreme Court Case

Edit: Weird Al is just a nice guy and goes to each artist or record label and asks if it's ok to write a parody of a specific song. Most are flattered, but there have a been one or two who either said no or that one time where he pissed off Eminem even though his label said it was cool.

 

[speculawyer]

This is a pretty borderline case for fair use. It is clearly a parody of the original song as it goes for empowerment instead of sexism. However, it is used in a commercial. It could go either way. I suspect Beasties will win because it is a commercial.