4 ms·

I normally side with the EFF (and donate a ton of money), but this is clearly an advertisement. It's commercial. That's the whole reason they're being sued, bec

by tedivm 13y ago

I normally side with the EFF (and donate a ton of money), but this is clearly an advertisement. It's commercial. That's the whole reason they're being sued, because the Beastie Boys don't want their stuff being used for advertisements. The whole beginning of the blog post is trying to deflect that by talking about remixing, and by accusing the Beastie Boys of being bullies. This part in particular bothered me- >But expect to hear this counterargument: that one of the most basic “copyrights” is the right to control how your work is used—including whether it is used at all. Proponents of this kind of claim will often invoke J.D. Salinger’s steadfast opposition to any adaptions of his works. But the argument forgets that every copyright set out in the Copyright Act is subject to numerous exceptions – including fair use. Copyright ≠ total control. While the Copyright Act does have numerous exceptions, fair use explicitly takes into account whether something is commercial or not. Ignoring that is disingenuous at beast.

ironchef 13y ago
I don't think it's ignoring that. Fair use for profit can still be legal. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc as an example.
- pflats 13y ago
  But in that case, the commercial good is the parody song itself. 2 Live Crew didn't turn around and use that song in a commercial for women's depilatory products. I don't think I've heard anyone argue that the song isn't fair use in and of itself. Using the parody song to advertise a tangentially related good is another story.
  - ironchef 13y ago
    Hmm. So the first argument was that fair use can't be commercial, but the Supreme Court obviously showed that commercial parody can be considered fair use. Now the argument is that the parody isn't commercial enough? That it's tangential? Is your argument that because it's tangential it is less of a parody? (Sorry if I'm not totally following... long day at work...)
    - officemonkey 13y ago
      My argument is it isn't a parody at all. They reworked the lyric for their product. It's done a lot in advertising ("I'd like to buy the world a coke" vs. "I'd like to teach the world to sing".) It boils down to this: the Beastie Boys song had more worth than an original song they wrote themselves. In addition to the actual song (which is a snappy professional-grade pop tune) they appeared to be trading on the Beastie Boys name in promoting the video. With limited exceptions, if you're using the creating works of others for your commercial benefit, you should pay the artist. Full stop.
    - pflats 13y ago
      I didn't make the first argument and don't agree with it. To me (not a lawyer) creating a commercial parody should not disqualify a work from being fair use per se. Campbell clearly backs that up. The copyright act says the law should analyse: "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" The Girls parody is for a commercial nature, as was Pretty Woman. But the purpose and character of them are different - Pretty Woman was created as a piece of art that was created to parody Oh, Pretty Woman. The Girls parody was created to be the soundtrack of an advertisement for Goldiblocks. There seems to be a slippery slope: should advertisers get free access to the oeuvre of popular music to use without cost, provided they change the nature of the piece? That would seemingly break "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." But that's just my gut feeling. I'm obviously not an expert here.
- tedivm 13y ago
  I think they're trying to downplay it too much. This is a toy company showing girls playing with toys while singing about wanting more toys. Yes, it does have a much better message than most- that girls should have more toys available than just things made of pink and dolls. But I'm not sure that pink lincoln logs is the way to do this ( http://www.goldieblox.com/collections/products http://www.goldieblox.com/collections/products ), and I do think it very likely that this video was done by a marketing department trying to get their name out there.
  - trololol 13y ago
    they are definitely using a lot of progressive discourse to seem like they anything but another commercial interest, girls/feminism (for profit (keep that in mind)). another would be the beastie boys-approves discourse. some very very smart marketing people at goldieblox they just want profit like the rest of the capitalist world. beastie boys are the victim here, a capitalist enterprise stole their track. kill it with fire.
tptacek 13y ago
They're not being sued. The band reached out to (one assumes) ask them not to use their material without authorization in a commercial, and the company sued them.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment: A declaratory judgment is typically requested when a party is threatened with a lawsuit but the lawsuit has not yet been filed... IANAL, but if Goldieblox are seeking a declaratory judgment that what they're doing is okay, that's less severe than, and not the same thing as, suing Universal or The Beastie Boys for some kind of reward or injunction. Still, the video clearly invokes the memory of The Beastie Boys' song to promote a product, giving the viewer the impression that Goldieblox is endorsed by The Beastie Boys. If it were my identity being appropriated by another company for advertising, I would not be okay with it either, no matter how progressive the product (and that's why I no longer review things via Google products, for example).
- underwater 13y ago
  That's really scummy of the EFF to phrase the title in a way that makes it seem like the Beastie Boys filed the suit.
vellum 13y ago
That's the whole reason they're being sued, because the Beastie Boys don't want their stuff being used for advertisements. It's ironic that a corporation (mis)using their song helped them bootstrap their music careers. Back in '84, British Airways used their first hip-hop track, Cooky Puss, in a commercial. The Beasties sued, won $40k, and quit their day jobs.

by tedivm 13y ago

ironchef 13y ago

I don't think it's ignoring that. Fair use for profit can still be legal. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc as an example.

pflats 13y ago
But in that case, the commercial good is the parody song itself. 2 Live Crew didn't turn around and use that song in a commercial for women's depilatory products. I don't think I've heard anyone argue that the song isn't fair use in and of itself. Using the parody song to advertise a tangentially related good is another story.
- ironchef 13y ago
  Hmm. So the first argument was that fair use can't be commercial, but the Supreme Court obviously showed that commercial parody can be considered fair use. Now the argument is that the parody isn't commercial enough? That it's tangential? Is your argument that because it's tangential it is less of a parody? (Sorry if I'm not totally following... long day at work...)
  - officemonkey 13y ago
    My argument is it isn't a parody at all. They reworked the lyric for their product. It's done a lot in advertising ("I'd like to buy the world a coke" vs. "I'd like to teach the world to sing".) It boils down to this: the Beastie Boys song had more worth than an original song they wrote themselves. In addition to the actual song (which is a snappy professional-grade pop tune) they appeared to be trading on the Beastie Boys name in promoting the video. With limited exceptions, if you're using the creating works of others for your commercial benefit, you should pay the artist. Full stop.
  - pflats 13y ago
    I didn't make the first argument and don't agree with it. To me (not a lawyer) creating a commercial parody should not disqualify a work from being fair use per se. Campbell clearly backs that up. The copyright act says the law should analyse: "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" The Girls parody is for a commercial nature, as was Pretty Woman. But the purpose and character of them are different - Pretty Woman was created as a piece of art that was created to parody Oh, Pretty Woman. The Girls parody was created to be the soundtrack of an advertisement for Goldiblocks. There seems to be a slippery slope: should advertisers get free access to the oeuvre of popular music to use without cost, provided they change the nature of the piece? That would seemingly break "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." But that's just my gut feeling. I'm obviously not an expert here.
tedivm 13y ago
I think they're trying to downplay it too much. This is a toy company showing girls playing with toys while singing about wanting more toys. Yes, it does have a much better message than most- that girls should have more toys available than just things made of pink and dolls. But I'm not sure that pink lincoln logs is the way to do this ( http://www.goldieblox.com/collections/products http://www.goldieblox.com/collections/products ), and I do think it very likely that this video was done by a marketing department trying to get their name out there.
- trololol 13y ago
  they are definitely using a lot of progressive discourse to seem like they anything but another commercial interest, girls/feminism (for profit (keep that in mind)). another would be the beastie boys-approves discourse. some very very smart marketing people at goldieblox they just want profit like the rest of the capitalist world. beastie boys are the victim here, a capitalist enterprise stole their track. kill it with fire.

tptacek 13y ago

They're not being sued. The band reached out to (one assumes) ask them not to use their material without authorization in a commercial, and the company sued them.

nitrogen 13y ago
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment: A declaratory judgment is typically requested when a party is threatened with a lawsuit but the lawsuit has not yet been filed... IANAL, but if Goldieblox are seeking a declaratory judgment that what they're doing is okay, that's less severe than, and not the same thing as, suing Universal or The Beastie Boys for some kind of reward or injunction. Still, the video clearly invokes the memory of The Beastie Boys' song to promote a product, giving the viewer the impression that Goldieblox is endorsed by The Beastie Boys. If it were my identity being appropriated by another company for advertising, I would not be okay with it either, no matter how progressive the product (and that's why I no longer review things via Google products, for example).
underwater 13y ago
That's really scummy of the EFF to phrase the title in a way that makes it seem like the Beastie Boys filed the suit.

vellum 13y ago

That's the whole reason they're being sued, because the Beastie Boys don't want their stuff being used for advertisements. It's ironic that a corporation (mis)using their song helped them bootstrap their music careers. Back in '84, British Airways used their first hip-hop track, Cooky Puss, in a commercial. The Beasties sued, won $40k, and quit their day jobs.