3 ms·

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.

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.