Support NeoGAF

[sharkmuncher]

From the FAQ:



.

And I don't necessarily think its a bad thing, just that they specifically called out pink toys in the commercial.

 

[speculawyer]

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

But a difference here is that was a song whereas this is a commercial jingle being used to sell something. It could go either way.

 

[Jenov]

Wow, shameless on the toy company's part. Hope they lose.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Things like these are strange. In our current world with our current laws, I feel sympathy for Beastie. But at the same time, I feel all are copyright laws needs to be changed.

 

[daveo42]

But a difference here is that was a song whereas this is a commercial jingle being used to sell something. It could go either way.

But it's a parody of the song and not the actual song right? If it can be classified as parody, then the copyright holder can do whatever they want to with it. Including using it to sell crap to kids.

Btw, I haven't seen the commercial so I'm just going off of what's been listed in the thread.

 

[injurai]

That's what I thought.

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

Sells a pink product marketed specifically to girls...

Ya and look at the companies name. They're whole website is dedicated to stereotypical girl toys. Not to say those toys are bad, but the whole situation is just petty on there part.

 

[Zippedpinhead]

If I had a daughter, she would already have one of those under the tree...

that being said, I think that the toy company should have done there homework and reached out to the company protecting the beastie boys' music about its use. The commercial itself could work as a PSA for girls to pursue STEM and other technical activities at a young age, which could be followed up by a similar shorter ad for their product without the song.

Love the message, but the toy company should have gotten better lawyers.

 

[LakeEarth]

So Glade plug-in's could make a commercial with a "Smells Like Teen Spirit" parody entitled "Smells Like Glade Freshness" and they wouldn't have to get permission cause it's a parody? Why don't they always do that?

 

[TheKaeptain]

But it's a parody of the song and not the actual song right? If it can be classified as parody, then the copyright holder can do whatever they want to with it. Including using it to sell crap to kids.

Btw, I haven't seen the commercial so I'm just going off of what's been listed in the thread.

It's up to the court to decide if it is fair use or not. They might say it is a remake used for the purpose of selling toys and BB would win. If you read how fair use is worded it really comes down to the interpretation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107



EDIT: OT but I guess I can say this semester has been some what useful. Since I have spent like the last 10 weeks going over this in my media marketing class.

 

[(mat)]

This is silly. Just ask for permission. They made the song, you want to use the song, ask permission. Morally, this is a black and white case. Morally.

 

[Markster]

There's over a hundred years of law covering music performance / reproduction licensing, so things are certainly complicated, but as far as my understanding:

1) Cover songs are fair game, so long as you get a Mechanical License, which is something that the song writer literally cannot deny. (It includes monetary compensation)
2) Re-writing the lyrics is covered under parody, while the music is under the Mechanical License. This is why Weird Al doesn't need permission (but gets it anyway to stay friends).
3) Though it looks like it gets complicated when you put it on video

Using their name in the video however, seems very questionable, as that almost certainly runs into trademark-style issues.

 

[Fugu]

This isn't a parody; it's a commercial jingle that lifts extensive portions of a Beastie Boys song.

 

[AndyD]

That's what I thought.

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

Sells a pink product marketed specifically to girls...

That got me too. The product is pink you hypocrites!

And I don't see much of a parody, as much as heavy borrowing trying to guise as parody.

 

[daveo42]

It's up to the court to decide if it is fair use or not. They might say it is a remake used for the purpose of selling toys and BB would win. If you read how fair use is worded it really comes down to the interpretation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107



EDIT: OT but I guess I can say this semester has been some what useful. Since I have spent like the last 10 weeks going over this in my media marketing class.

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

I suppose this is what you are talking about since it would have no impact on the market of the original work. BB may be able to win on these grounds if the parody was solely to sell their product.

 

[Messypandas]

Beastie Boys stance on promotional tie-ins has been pretty well known for a while now. The company probably felt the commercial was a good opportunity for "positive message + copyright controversy" to give the ad that extra viral boost. The cost of settlement will be a drop in the ocean compared to the money being made here.

 

[LiK]

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 thought you had to.

 

[Massive Nights]

I think it's fairly clear that although it is a parody, it's also very obviously a commercial advisement. Not exactly the same situation, but Tom Waits has repeatedly won law suits against companies that he has turned down, who then went on use sound-a-like singers in their adverts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Waits#Lawsuits

 

[Koomaster]

The genie is sort of already out of the bottle on this one. People who never heard of this company/toy before (including myself) now have. So they pretty much 'win' even if they lose the court case. Even the news of this lawsuit directs people to investigate the product. The expression there is no such thing as bad news rings true here.

 

[Angry Grimace]

But a difference here is that was a song whereas this is a commercial jingle being used to sell something. It could go either way.

I don't know that I see a material difference. The 2 Live Crew song exists to sell itself. I'm not sure I buy that selling a separate product vs. selling the song itself are so different in kind as to be legally distinct.

 

[captive]

That got me too. The product is pink you hypocrites!

i'm not sure, but i think they're point is not that toys for girls are pink, but that they take toys for boys slap a coat of pink paint on them and call them toys for girls.


also, funny when i saw this commercial my first thought was cool, engineering toys for girls, but my second was i wonder if beastie boys gave permission to use the song.

 

[Just_myles]

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?

Not for a parody. I would. Weird Al usually asks. They should have probably asked to avoid stuff like this.

Robin thicke's case it was more like, 'What do I have to do in order to get this cleared up?'. It wasn't 'OMG I copyrighted Gotta give it up, now I must sue', like most people seem to think. He offered the Gaye Estate a six figure settlement, which obviously they did not take. My opinion on that is, so anyone that has a song with a cowbell and a groove has to pay Marvin Gaye. lol

 

[CodonAUG]

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.



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

From the goldieblocks tumblr:

Tim Schafer, video game mastermind of DoubleFine Productions and Kickstarter success story, makes a cameo appearance in GoldieBlox’s launch video with his daughter. “Lili and I got to check out a cool engineering toy for girls, and they used us in their KS video!,” tweets Shafer.

 

[BigDug13]

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

Yeah and that's why Coolio couldn't do anything legally, even though he was "pissed" that Weird Al used his song (which apparently was a miscommunication between Weird Al's people and Coolio's people since he always does get permission.)

 

[DaMan121]

Looks like the toy company going to get sabotaged.

redford_nodding.gif

 

[Dan]

I think they're gonna run into a problem because they're actually using the Beastie Boys name in their publicity of the video. If you see that title, you might believe they were actually involved. If you're going to parody something for commercial benefit, you probably shouldn't explicitly invoke the work.

 

[DrSlek]

Not for a parody. I would. Weird Al usually asks. They should have probably asked to avoid stuff like this.

I thought people were protected by fair use in the case of parody songs until they actively start making money from that parody in some way.

If that parody song is being used to sell a product, the Beastie Boys may very well be in their rights to say "stop that".

 

[Angry Grimace]

I think they're gonna run into a problem because they're actually using the Beastie Boys name in their publicity of the video. If you see that title, you might believe they were actually involved. If you're going to parody something for commercial benefit, you probably shouldn't explicitly invoke the work.

Not sure that's going to change the analysis because they're just signposting that its a parody directly. It seems to me that it might be a lot more insidious and less parody-like if they just said nothing and only people who knew the original song would know about the parody.

 

[CartridgeBlower]

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

Until he doesn't get it and then throws a public hissy fit online until the artist is forced to relent or else risk looking like a jerk...

 

[Cat Party]

Those of you who think you aren't allowed to make money on a parody should probably let Saturday Night Live know because oh boy they are in trouble.

 

[Just_myles]

I thought people were protected by fair use in the case of parody songs until they actively start making money from that parody in some way.

Well, that wouldn't be a fair use since they are profiting. Here is what should have happened;

Parody or not, if a song even sounds like another song, you should work out a direct licensing agreement. Or at least have their blessing to perform the song as to prevent any litigation. Weird Al's case is a bit strange he does get money from these but, each artist should be receiving some form of royalty. I could check this seeing as I am at work but, I believe i'm probably right.

Beastie Boys are in the right on this. 'Fair Use' is not an actual defense. This would be a good example of a Voluntary Statuatory agreement.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The parody itself as a product is fair use, but if the song is being used as a promotional tool or in commercial goods, I would think, legally, it would need to be dealt with under licensing agreements.

Sort of like the difference between Weird Al parodying a song, and a porn company using the Mickey Mouse March in one of its videos.



A lot of wrestlers use commercial music as their entrance themes without permission on the independent circuit. Technically, this is a violation of copyright, but the indie wrestling scene is so niche, the audiences so small, and the finances so low, that it goes without litigation. But if they use the music on a larger stage, when the audience is tens of thousands, or millions, then it becomes an issue. It's a similar scenario that clearly requires licensing.

 

[xbhaskarx]

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

But "your song" WASN'T used, this is clearly a parody. Perhaps become more familiar with your own music?

 

[GDJustin]

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

But "your song" WASN'T used, this is clearly a parody. Perhaps become more familiar with your own music?

Song is also melody and composition, you know...

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

This isn't strictly a parody, or only a parody. In one hand a parody would have a criticism of the original song's content, and in part it is. That's it is why it is protected by fair use, because otherwise you couldn't criticize a text without the author stopping you. But it doesn't let you do all you want with your parody other than criticizing the original text. For that you have to prove that the song you are using is the only one that could convey your message. That is, your interests lie in the contents of the song alone. And another piece of music would not do, because it is not the music what you care about.

 

[Korey]

Those of you who think you aren't allowed to make money on a parody should probably let Saturday Night Live know because oh boy they are in trouble.

SNL are actual parodies.

I love the idea of Goldiblox but I think they may be in the wrong here. You can't just take songs, change the lyrics, and use them in your commercials. For example, Petsmart couldn't just take Katy Perry's "Roar", change the lyrics to "Woof", and use it in an ad for free.

 

[Nappuccino]

SNL are actual parodies.

I love the idea of Goldiblox but I think they may be in the wrong here. You can't just take songs, change the lyrics, and use them in your commercials. For example, Petsmart couldn't just take Katy Perry's "Roar", change the lyrics to "Woof", and use it in an ad for free.

Even if you re-do the backing track, you're still redoing someone's copy written property. I mean, wasn't Neil Young sued for stealing his own music when he left a label?

edit: doesn't seem to be Young . . . no idea who i'm referring to.

 

[jsip]

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?

Yes you do. Vanilla Ice got sued by Freddie Mercury and David Bowie for using 2 bars of "Under Pressure" in Vanilla's song "Ice Ice Baby".

You are allowed to sample 1 bar of any music piece as "fair use" so long as that bar is intelligible in sound from the whole originating IP. In other words, you can't sample the "hook".

In this case, it is obvious the entire song was remade with the original musical score for the purpose of advertisement. Beastie Boys will win.

 

[lenovox1]

Yes you do. Vanilla Ice got sued by Freddie Mercury and David Bowie for using 2 bars of "Under Pressure" in Vanilla's song "Ice Ice Baby".

You are allowed to sample 1 bar of any music piece as "fair use" so long as that bar is intelligible in sound from the whole originating IP. In other words, you can't sample the "hook".

In this case, it is obvious the entire song was remade with the original musical score for the purpose of advertisement. Beastie Boys will win.

You have to invoke the original work in order for a parody to be a parody. The Supreme Court established that. So, no, this is not an automatic win for the Beastie Boys.

 

[Megalosaro]

The "parody video" was very clearly a commercial.

 

[Cousteau]

Are they suing for a pocket full of shells?

..as I feel this reality gently fade away.

 

[hipbabboom]

Is that Tim Schafer at the 00:20 mark?

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

And here I thought you were making a joke!

 

[ipitydatfu]

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

i think he was one of the original backers or something during kickstarter (or indiegogo whichever startup they used)

 

[Angry Grimace]

Yes you do. Vanilla Ice got sued by Freddie Mercury and David Bowie for using 2 bars of "Under Pressure" in Vanilla's song "Ice Ice Baby".

You are allowed to sample 1 bar of any music piece as "fair use" so long as that bar is intelligible in sound from the whole originating IP. In other words, you can't sample the "hook".

In this case, it is obvious the entire song was remade with the original musical score for the purpose of advertisement. Beastie Boys will win.

As was noted already, commercial usage is not the deciding factor. It's one of several factors considered; pretty much all parodies exist to sell themselves.

 

[kirby_fox]

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?

Nah. Weird Al did it after someone got angry at him for choosing, so now he asks permission before he does. I think he's had some people say no.

It's basically the same thing that Robin Thicke did- they brought lawsuit that basically is saying "Stop calling this illegal, it's not." I had seen Goldieblox before that ad even, and it's sad their message might get lost because of some choice mistakes like this one.

 

[Just_myles]

It's basically the same thing that Robin Thicke did- they brought lawsuit that basically is saying "Stop calling this illegal, it's not." I had seen Goldieblox before that ad even, and it's sad their message might get lost because of some choice mistakes like this one.

yeah they should have went ahead and worked out an agreement, with specific details as does pretty much most artist do. Don't know why they would think fair use would be some sort of shield when it's clearly not.

 

[Einhander]

You gotta FIGHT for your RIGHT to SUE!

I always admired the fact that the Beastie Boys wouldn't allow their music to be used for advertisements.

 

[DiscoJer]

Yes you do. Vanilla Ice got sued by Freddie Mercury and David Bowie for using 2 bars of "Under Pressure" in Vanilla's song "Ice Ice Baby".

You are allowed to sample 1 bar of any music piece as "fair use" so long as that bar is intelligible in sound from the whole originating IP. In other words, you can't sample the "hook".

In this case, it is obvious the entire song was remade with the original musical score for the purpose of advertisement. Beastie Boys will win.

But don't the Beastie Boys basically do that to a lot of Led Zeppelin (and other) songs? I remember a friend playing Licensed to Ill for me the first time and I remember hearing parts of The Ocean and When the Levee breaks

 

[Flynn]

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

MCA didn't want Beastie Boys songs to be used in commercials ever.

 

[Flynn]

Beastie Boys stance on promotional tie-ins has been pretty well known for a while now. The company probably felt the commercial was a good opportunity for "positive message + copyright controversy" to give the ad that extra viral boost. The cost of settlement will be a drop in the ocean compared to the money being made here.

This is exactly it. Very cynical marketing ploy, especially considering they're tugging on everybody's girl positive heart strings.

 

[Slavik81]

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.

Sometimes it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.