Beastie Boys hit with backlash as legal fight looms over 'Girls' video

[Brian in Mesa]

Beastie Boys hit with backlash as legal fight looms over 'Girls' video

http://www.latimes.com/nation/share...-video-20131123,0,3565201.story#ixzz2lW610aWQ

The Beastie Boys are reportedly pursuing legal action against the makers of a video that went viral this week by putting a pink-empowerment spin on the artists' "Girls."

The Internet's reaction to the alleged copyright infringement claim? What a bunch of babies!

Social media reaction so far appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of the GoldiBlox video aimed at encouraging little girls to pursue careers in engineering. On Twitter alone, for example, Tweets are calling out the Beastie Boys and urging them to quickly resolve the legal wrangling and allow the video to live on.

GoldiBlox, the upstart toy company behind "The Princess Machine" video has said in a court document that representatives for the Beastie Boys are threatening them with a copyright infringement action. This, according to the Hollywood Reporter, which links to the filing. GoldiBlox contends that the video is clearly a parody, and as such does not infringe on copyrights and is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Here is the video the Beastie Boys are suing over:

 

[MigratingOsprey]

it's really sad how they've evolved into burned out self important douche rockets over time

 

[devilalum]

it's really sad how they've evolved into burned out self important douche rockets over time

That's all they ever were. I saw them once in the 80s when somebody gave me free tickets. It was the worst "concert" I have ever seen.

 

[Linderbee]

It absolutely is a parody. What a bunch of jerks.

 

[BigRedRage]

they are using the parody for monetary gain right? So stealing their intellectual property and using it for profit? so they can sell their toys.

 

[Mulli]

they are using the parody for monetary gain right? So stealing their intellectual property and using it for profit? so they can sell their toys.

This. I hope the Beasties stir fry them in their wok.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

they are using the parody for monetary gain right? So stealing their intellectual property and using it for profit? so they can sell their toys.

Yep and it's heating up even more now. The band issued a statement after GoldieBlox sued them...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/beastie-boys-girls-viral-video-659308

According to a lawsuit filed on Thursday by Goldieblox, "the Beastie Boys have now threatened GoldieBlox with copyright infringement. Lawyers for the Beastie Boys claim that the GoldieBlox Girls Parody Video is a copyright infringement, is not a fair use and that GoldieBlox's unauthorized use of the Beastie Boys intellectual property is a 'big problem' that has a 'very significant impact.' "

Goldieblox is now going to a California federal court to get declaratory relief that the video is not a copyright infringement.

On Monday, the band released a letter saying while it was “impressed by the creativity and the message” of the Goldieblox video, “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."

 

[crisper57]

Beastie Boys are in the right on this one, regardless of the message. There is clear infringement.

 

[Linderbee]

I guess I don't understand the difference between parody being allowed under Fair Use Doctrine & parody not being allowed. ie, it's been reported that Weird Al doesn't always get permission before he makes his parodies, and that is obviously for personal gain. What is the difference?

 

[BigRedRage]

I guess I don't understand the difference between parody being allowed under Fair Use Doctrine & parody not being allowed. ie, it's been reported that Weird Al doesn't always get permission before he makes his parodies, and that is obviously for personal gain. What is the difference?

From what I know weird al does get permission: the only ones he didnt he did and then coolio backed up and said he didnt. Eminem didnt give permission and the song never released.

I could be wrong though.

 

[BigRedRage]

Refused parodies

On numerous occasions, Prince has refused Yankovic permission to record parodies of his songs. Yankovic has stated in interviews that he has "approached him every few years [to] see if he's lightened up."[71] Yankovic related one story where, before the American Music Awards where he and Prince were assigned to sit in the same row, he got a telegram from Prince's lawyers, demanding he not make eye contact with the artist.[56]
Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page is a self-proclaimed Yankovic fan, but when Yankovic wished to create a polka medley of Led Zeppelin songs, Page refused.[72] Yankovic was, however, allowed the very rare opportunity to re-record a sample of "Black Dog" for a segment of "Trapped in the Drive-Thru".[73]
Paul McCartney, also a Yankovic fan, refused Yankovic permission to record a parody of Wings' "Live and Let Die", titled "Chicken Pot Pie", because McCartney is a vegetarian and found the parody to be improper.[74]
In 2006, Yankovic gained James Blunt's permission to record a parody of "You're Beautiful". However, after Yankovic had recorded "You're Pitiful", Blunt's label, Atlantic Records, rescinded this permission, despite Blunt's personal approval of the song.[56] The parody was pulled from Yankovic's Straight Outta Lynwood because of his label's unwillingness to "go to war" with Atlantic. Yankovic released the song as a free download on his MySpace profile, as well as his official website, and plays it in concert, since it was not Blunt himself objecting to the parody.[75] Yankovic referenced the incident in his video for "White & Nerdy" when he depicts himself vandalizing Atlantic Records' Wikipedia page.

from wiki

 

[BigRedRage]

and

Fair use and parody[edit]

Producers or creators of parodies of a copyrighted work have been sued for infringement by the targets of their ridicule, even though such use may be protected as fair use. These fair use cases distinguish between parodies (using a work in order to poke fun at or comment on the work itself) and satires (using a work to poke fun at or comment on something else). Courts have been more willing to grant fair use protections to parodies than to satires, but the ultimate outcome in either circumstance will turn on the application of the four fair use factors.
In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc[22] the Supreme Court recognized parody as a potential fair use, even when done for profit. Roy Orbison's publisher, Acuff-Rose Music Inc, had sued 2 Live Crew in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than used for mere advertising, commercial sale did not bar the defense. The Campbell court also distinguished parodies from satire, which they described as a broader social critique not intrinsically tied to ridicule of a specific work, and so not deserving of the same use exceptions as parody because the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work.
A number of appellate decisions have recognized that a parody may be a protected fair use, including both the Second (Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.) and Ninth Circuits (Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions). Most recently, in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, a suit was brought unsuccessfully against the publication of The Wind Done Gone, which reused many of the characters and situations from Gone with the Wind, but told the events from the point of view of the slaves rather than the slaveholders. The Eleventh Circuit, applying Campbell, recognized that The Wind Done Gone was fair use, and vacated the district court's injunction against its publication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody

 

[Brian in Mesa]

from wiki

You missed THIS part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Weird_Al"_Yankovic#Reactions_from_original_artists

Under the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law, affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, artists such as Yankovic do not need permission to record a parody.[55] However, as a personal rule and as a means of maintaining good relationships, Yankovic has always sought permission from the original artist before commercially releasing a parody.[7] He claims that only about two to three percent of the artists he approaches for permission deny his requests,[56] while many of the rest who approve consider Yankovic's parodies to be a badge of honor and rite of passage in the music industry.

-----------------

He does NOT have to have their permission to use their song. He is just a nice guy and goes out of his way to get permission.

 

[Bert]

You missed THIS part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Weird_Al%22_Yankovic#Reactions_from_original_artists

Under the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law, affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, artists such as Yankovic do not need permission to record a parody.[55] However, as a personal rule and as a means of maintaining good relationships, Yankovic has always sought permission from the original artist before commercially releasing a parody.[7] He claims that only about two to three percent of the artists he approaches for permission deny his requests,[56] while many of the rest who approve consider Yankovic's parodies to be a badge of honor and rite of passage in the music industry.

-----------------

He does NOT have to have their permission to use their song. He is just a nice guy and goes out of his way to get permission.

He may not HAVE to but he can get sued afterward, and lose. It's even in that story above, his label didn't want to "go to war" with Atlantic.

As for the Beastie Boys I totally agree with them. It's their song and this company cant just re record a parody to make a commercial and sell their toys even if they are cute "smart" toys for little girls. That's the problem with the internet. If the commercial was for Chainsaws or buffalo wings it would be a non story people would just be like well duh, they stole their song, you cant do that. But because of the product it turns into "BEASTIE BOYS PICK ON LITTLE GIRLS!!!"

Artists are entitled to protect their work, regardless of how silly it is.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

He may not HAVE to but he can get sued afterward, and lose. It's even in that story above, his label didn't want to "go to war" with Atlantic.

Yep, but he still recorded it, released it for free, and performs it in concert - because the artist didn't have an issue with it.

Totally agree with the position of the Beastie Boys in this one.

If this was just a sweet promo song meant to encourage girls to think outside the box and do things not viewed as "girly" it would be one thing, but it is marketing for a commercial business pure and simple. Using the song to advertise and sell their product. They should have reached out to the group before putting their song parody together - and an arrangement might have been agreed to, since the song is well done and inspiring for girls.

 

[Gaddabout]

I guess I don't understand the difference between parody being allowed under Fair Use Doctrine & parody not being allowed. ie, it's been reported that Weird Al doesn't always get permission before he makes his parodies, and that is obviously for personal gain. What is the difference?

Weird Al doesn't always get permission from the artists, but the artists are not always (or even typically) the rights holders.

Someone mentioned Coolio. WA got permission from the rights holders, but not from Coolio.

 

[Gaddabout]

BB are in the right here. The song isn't protected speech. It was clearly taking a copyrighted song's theme and rebranding it for their own commercial purpose.

FWIW, I would like to think BB meets the three women who came up with this, recognizes the importance of what they're doing, and decides to license the song fee gratis. This isn't some stupid kids toy. It's revolutionary, IMO.

 

[NJCardFan]

he got a telegram from Prince's lawyers, demanding he not make eye contact with the artist.

This statement right here ought to show you what kind of ******* Prince really it. I mean, on what planet does Prince and his cast of shysters think he is that they can tell another human being not to even look at him? If I were Weird Al, I'd have spent the entire night looking in his direction and in true Weird Al form, have his eyes closed but wearing these glasses:

You must be registered for see images

 

[Linderbee]

I'm not sure how I feel about it anymore--and I appreciate all the research & input from everyone. The song/commercial is clearly parody, not satire (imo) so I would think they would win if it went to court. However, if it's true what BB said about the toymaker threatening them with a lawsuit first, then that makes things a little different and puts the jerk cap back on the toymaker.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

commercial gain means nothing in this instance - zip

what may get them in trouble though is how much they used/how long the ad length is

will be interesting regardless

and the beasties will be just what they were before this flap - uber douche rockets

 

[crisper57]

and the beasties will be just what they were before this flap - uber douche rockets

You are right, but even douche rockets deserve to have their intellectual property protected.

 

[Gaddabout]

commercial gain means nothing in this instance - zip

Actually, it does. It does not meet the purpose and character of fair use. (Bold my own emphasis)

Title 17, Section 107 of the United States Code:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Goldieblox has since pulled the ad deferring to the Boys' blanket ban on their music in advertising, but the reality is they had no case.

See: Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music

 

[Gaddabout]

The Beastie Boys' open letter to GoldieBlox after the company sued them. It's similar to the letter they had written privately asking for a cease-and-desist:

”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."

Allow me to further explain the BB's song is a parody in itself, in the same way Huey Lewis' "I Need A New Drug" was a parody. GoldieBlox owners said they were somehow redeeming a song that offended them, and they didn't even understand the original spirit of the song.