I am actually quite amazed at how Goldie Blox has managed to use the internet to spin themselves up as the victim here.
Leaving aside the question of whether appropriating a song to sell toys (from a band who has asked that their songs never be used to sell anything) is legally “fair use,” Goldie Blox announced that they had been threatened by Beastie Boys without ever showing how, exactly, they were threatened.
Then in their suit against the Beastie Boys, they said simply “In response, the Beastie Boys and their label have lashed out and accused GoldieBlox of copyright infringement.,” again without citing a specific letter. (I have to wonder why they need to append the unnecessary hyperbolic, emotionally-loaded phrasing like “lashed out” in a legal filing, instead of letting the actual letter do the talking.)
And in that suit they are suing the band for fees and expenses, and “such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.”
So Goldie Blox uses someone else’s song to sell toys, announces that they received a threatening letter which they have not shown, sues the Beastie Boys, and manages to spin the internet up in a frenzy about how they have been attacked.
This is ridiculous. If this was any other band, or even any other song by the Beasties, nobody would even be arguing this. Also, if this was a different company with a different message, we wouldn’t be arguing this. The more I read about this case, the more I come to the conclusion that this was a calculated move on Goldieblox part to paint themselves as the victims in order to sell more toys. This has nothing to do with feminism, or empowering young girls, it’s about using any tool you have, ethical or not, to sell more widgets.
Could be. I speculated on that as well in the other thread. We won’t know till we see documents / reports of who contact whom first (maybe never). Could be that GB made this and released it and thought the bboys would be supercool with it, or there could be an evil viral marketing genius lurking in the background.
I haven’t seen “demonizing,” though. Just the report that the bboys lawyer “threatened,” which is generally a lawyerly thing to do.
Yeah, I wasn’t really aware of the Streisand effect, but after looking it up and reading some of the comments here, I think this was kind of a crappy move on Goldieblocks. I was tossing around the idea of getting a set of these for my daughter in a year or two (she’s only 1 now), but this has left a bad taste in my mouth.
Oh well, an erector set is probably more useful anyways.
I’d say a letter from a lawyer asking why something was used without permission to be threatening myself, but that’s just me.
EFF has a good rundown of the 4 factors for fair use and how they apply even to commercial usage here - since it was written by lawyers who are actually practiced in this sort of thing, I’ll take it as a more meaningful statement than most of the comments here:
So if the Beastie Boys never made any move for actual legal action, and GoldieBlocks somehow piped their injunction request to the media which got blown out of proportion, and big “legal battles” make for advertising… I might might be a conspiracy theorist because http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1PBptSDIh8
Rather conspicuous that Goldie Blox hasn’t published or quoted the Beastie Boys “accusations” or just what constitutes “lashing out”. You’d think it would be easy to show the threat they received–assuming it was a hard copy, or at least an email. I find it hard to believe it was only verbal if they felt it reached the level of suing for expenses so quickly.
I was already leaning on not liking Goldie Box just for the cloying cheesiness of the commercial. Seeing this evident grab for publicity is not making me like them any better.
I hope it all backfires on them if indeed the copyright holders issued no threat.
I said “Given the strong pro-feminist / anti-sexist message of the video in relation to the original…” [emphasis added].
In order to enjoy the special protections of parody, the work must comment upon the original. Anusol making a song about burning hemmorhoid rings would need to directly comment upon the original, which I think would be tricky to pull off.
Insofar as the original “Girls” can be interpreted as putting women in a sexist box, this GB remake offers some line-for-line refutations of the tasks and interests suitable for young girls. This isn’t an oblique reference or allusion to the message of the original, it’s a direct and strong rebuttal, and it’s that crispness that makes it clearly a parody, in my mind.
Now, whether it’s sufficiently strong to clear the hurdle given the handicap of “less indulgence” is the question. Surely, test #1 may swallow the other three, but that’s what trials are for. But if this case doesn’t pass that test, then my question what would?
I’m no lawyer, but I’ve dealt with a lot of copyright issues. In my opinion (just an opinion, but a more or less educated one), GoldieBlox would have had a really strong fair-use/parody case if they had simply ended their video with a URL like “girlsrule.com” or some such thing, and let viral marketing do the work. By ending it with their logo, they made it explicitly a commercial, and terribly weakened their fair-use case. The Beasties are in the right to question them, absolutely. If GoldieBlox are preemptively suing, they’re in the wrong.
Don’t forget the timing. They put the video up on youtube on November 17, right about the time every single parent has started to think about what they want to buy their children for christmas. By the end of the week the video is all over the internet with dozens of blog posts talking about the company as a victim.
It was almost a brilliant marketing scheme until it backfired!
I’m not sure whether the it being an ad is really relevant. Porn producers have been making money off of parody videos for quite some time now.
GoldieBlocks is all about little girl power. I think they can legitimately make the case they are parodying a misogynistic song. The problem with McDonald’s is that they don’t have a pro-feminist history. A judge or jury may look at them with a bit more skepticism.
Here’s the closest I can find to a full copy of the open letter
Predictably, it focuses on their anti-ad stance. Conspicuously, it does not mention “fair use.” (recall the hollywood reporter story alleged that the bboys lawyers initially stated the GB remix was not “fair use”).
As has been noted, if they were selling the song itself, that’s be a pretty cut-and-dry argument that it’s a parody and fair use. Same as Weird Al (he asks for permission but doesnt have to), same as “Pulp Friction.”
But, it’s not the same thing to then use that parody song in an ad for another product.
Also, outside of their marketing department, why the assumption that GoldieBlox is this completely innocent institution? They sell toys, for profit. Nothing wrong with that, but we’re not talking about Doctors Without Borders here.
Well, obviously the EFF has a certain perspective they bring to their analysis, and I’m not sure that a neutral party would come to the same conclusions on elements 2-4. Citing some cases would probably help, too.
If a court wanted to distinguish the two, it would be quite easy: in a porn film—as with the “Pretty Woman” parody—the parody itself is the product; here, the parody is being used simply as commercial speech/advertisement.
Selling toys to little girls does not parody the Beastie Boys, though. Now, if they subverted the “Toys 'R Us” jingle, that would seem to be a little closer.
The parody is part of their show. If I made a parody of a song and put it on an album, you would be asking, “Are you selling the song or the album?” A song used on a commercial is in no way part of the product (unless the song is literally embedded in the product).
N.B. I am trained in philosophy not law, so I am not qualified to comment on whether or not it is fair use, only to comment on faulty analogies.
