sounds like GoldieBlocks is gonna sell a lot of toys.
I read this as theyâve looked deep into the eyes of the Streisand abyss, and are trying to decide how to save face for their anti-ad stance while stepping back from the unfair use claim.
Iâm a lawyer but not yours and not a copyright lawyer⌠is advertising really fair use? (Edited to make my disclaimer more disclaim-y.)
I know, right? As way cool as the Beasties are, I kinda hate them now. HATE.
maybe the 2 remaining beastie boys are just trying to honour the wishes of their lifelong friend who died not all that long ago?
Iâd recommend the twitter feed of @doctorow or @waxpancake, where there are a lot of educated (and uneducated) folks weighing in. As I understand it, thereâs a four-factor test, only one of which hinges upon advertising. And even then, it doesnât say advertising canât enjoy fair use, only that it might receive âless indulgence.â
Given the strong pro-feminist / anti-sexist message of the video in relation to the original, itâs hard to imagine what would pass the bar if this doesnât.
You know, as much as I admire the aims of the goldie blox toy, this seems to be pretty clearing used for commercial and not protected by"fair use". Beastie Boys donât want their music used to sell products. That seems perfectly admirable. Whose side would you be on if it was Ford or Chevron that had appropriated music without consent or compensation?
Adam Yauch stated in his will that he doesnât want the Beastie Boyâs music to ever be used in advertising.
To be fair the message of the advert is irrelevant, theyâre still just slinging toys. If it were a McDonalds ad, even with a pro-feminist message, I canât imagine the overall attitude to the situation would be the same.
Iâm actually in the âI find it distastefulâ camp. I love the message, and had it been on some YouTubeârs account as a non-commercial parody Iâd get the anger. But as it stands itâs just a toy company making money off the backs of others - thatâs not really what I understand fair use to be for; even if it technically qualifies.
I donât know the legal inâs and outâs though, thatâs just my opinion. But I donât have anything against the Beastie Boys here. If I were a musician I wouldnât like my music being used for ads either - and if all you have to do to use it commercially is change a few lyrics then Iâm surprised that Anusol havenât danced on Johnny Cashâs grave yet.
Itâs amazing how quickly most commenters assume that the Beasties are at fault. Itâs almost like you missed the last 20 years of their music, where they were frequently, vocally pro-women. In case you need a refresher, this is who weâre talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS4QH4-Jm0Q
skip to 3mins in if you donât want to watch the whole thing. It could be that they were the bad guys here, but without seeing the original (ill?) communication, Iâm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
(Iâm a lawyer, but Iâm not your lawyer, and in any event, Iâve got no copyright experience. And this isnât legal advice, itâs just arguing on the internet.)
Commercial use is usually THE factor that swallows the other three. And in this case, you could pretty easily say that both factors 1 and 3 weigh against GoldieBloxâthe purpose of the use was commercial AND they took substantially all of the work, including the âheartâ of the work.
As for the inspirational message, Iâm pretty sure copyright is supposed to be message-agnostic; otherwise, Iâd think youâd run into First Amendment problems.
I think the question is the one @blambo raises: what happens if itâs Ford, or Chevron (or Wal-Mart, or Rob Ford) repurposing a song you like for pure advertising purposes?
What does that have anything to do with it? Are you saying that âI agree with this particular political position, therefore copyright laws be damnedâ? If anything, thatâs actually the very essence of violating âequality before the lawâ, which is a central tenant of anti-sexist thinking. Irony!
Yeah. @blambo @mcsnee and @NathanHornby all make good points about the commercial nature of the⌠er⌠commercial.
If this was a lesser known artist who had been parodied by a bigger business, the outrage would likely flow the other direction.
I think itâs easy to follow a gut reaction to side with GoldieBlox because of the message and delivery but letâs remember this isnât some little girls getting sued by the Beastie Boys, this is a business that appropriated their music to sell a product, stirred up media coverage, and then preemptively sued them.
I thought the ad was promoting girls building Rube Goldberg Machines, which I heartily approve of.
I read this as GoldieBlox decided to use the Streisand Effect to get a ton of positive publicity. It wasnât enough for them to knowingly use a song against the wishes of the creator, they also have to try to publicly demonize the creator in order to promote themselves.
Thatâs pretty much how I feel about too, even as the owner of a Goldieblox from their Kickstarter. I support both proudly, but one of them voiced repeated wishes that their songs not get used for advertising.
Yeah, this seem like a dirty move from GoldieBlocks. Bad enough to rip off someones music to convince people to buy stuff, against the strong and admirable anticommercial stance of the author, but to demonize them for being upset about it is a whole 'nother level in assholery. Iâm not commenting on whether this is legal fair use, but I think itâs a dick move either way.
well sometimes you have to Fight For Your Right to Parody
I wholly agree with the suggestion that people flip the power roles in their heads when thinking about this issue.
Small indie artist with a song; McDonaldâs using that song in a âparodyâ video to sell Happy Meals.
Would people feel the same way about the situation? Our feelings about the message should not influence the situation.
