Sounds like it. I figured that was covered under ‘a new recording’.
Which means it would need to license the music unless it can claim the parody exception… which is unclear, and which I wouldn’t have counted on if I was in their position.
Outside of that, special case, licensing the music while setting new words to it can’t be handled under mechanical license, It would have to be negotiated with the rights holder.
(Publishing lyrics that “may be sung to” a particular tune is a different matter, as Mad Magazine established in court. But that isn’t relevant to this case.)
my general view is:
1: fuck copyright. all the legal wrangling and “only a judge can determine fair use” makes fair use useless, if you cannot determine in advance if you are in violation of the law, the law is poorly written.
2: probably shouldn’t be using it in advertisements when the person’s final wish was that their works NOT be used in advertisements…kinda a dick move.
i think they were fine to use the music absent any knowledge from the band of the will, though they should have at least considered contacting them in advance, it’s just common courtesy. but absent that when they were told about it they should have apologized and pulled the ad.
none of this has to do with is person x legally justified in doing y, when the law is so unclear and so poorly written and uneven as copyright is i don’t give a fuck about that law, the question should be who is in the right, who is morally justified here, and i think its the beasty boys, least absent any other information (maybe they were total dicks in their letter, maybe goldieblox tried to contact them but was blown off so they just went ahead anyways. don’t know but absent that information, beasty boys seem to be in the right)
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
