Someone else may have already said this, but: There isn’t an easy way to license just the melody. Cover performances can be handled by Mechanical License (standard payment scheme); anything else requires negotiation with the rights holder, who may say “no” or ask a price you don’t want to pay … in which case you go elsewhere.
Which is why they were hoping to get by on Fair Use instead. A good lawyer could/should have told them that was going to have its own challenges.
It’s worth reading the analysis here: http://waxy.org/2013/11/goldieblox_and_the_three_mcs/ which explains many of the myths/facts being repeated in these comments.
Whether or not the toy deserves to exist or the CEO deserves to call herself an engineer aren’t the point, nor is the supposed size of the toy company in question.
Advertisement to sell an unrelated product: check
Parody: check
Legal: check
using a parody as an advertisement is NOT sufficient grounds to remove fair use rights.
Over the past week, parents have sent us pictures and videos of their kids singing the new lyrics with pride, building their own Rube Goldberg machines in their living rooms and declaring an interest in engineering. It’s been incredible to watch.
Yeah I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
“Get on the cutoff switch, Bob, we’re reaching maximum Streisand effect in 3… 2… 1… mark. OK, we’ll take the holiday weekend off, then start with the ‘99 Problems’ version early Monday.”
Can you copyright a magazine cover idea? Didn’t think so- otherwise, I would have copyrighted the “hot model staring at the camera sensually while puckering her lips” idea ages ago. That’s what makes your example different than this- you forgot to add “copyright infringement: uncheck”
(Not to mention, it’s advertising a creative work which is, itself, a parody- not a toy line, which probably mucks up the legal grey area further.)
Sure, but that poster is an advertisement for a parody. The movie it’s advertising is itself a parody. I don’t know if Leslie Nielsen gets pregnant in it, but if he doesn’t is the parody in the advertisement unrelated to the parody in the movie.
Search YouTube … someone already uploaded it about a week ago to a different account.
So you’re saying that a parody advertisement is only ok if it’s advertising a parody. Isn’t that a little … recursive?
The definition of parody, for rights purposes, is very specific and fairly limited.
As much as I enjoy Weird Al, saying his music “serv[es] the public good” is perhaps a bit of a stretch, yes? He’s a musician, he earns money from it, it’s his job. You seem to be attaching motives here in order to create a false dichotomy or boost an appeal to emotion.
For the record, “commentaries on popular culture” do not satisfy the US legal definition of parody (“The parody must target the original, and not just its general style, the genre of art to which it belongs, or society as a whole (although if it targets the original, it may target those features as well).”, Campbell at 597, Kennedy concurring). Weird Al has a decent number of works that would likely fail the parody test (“Couch Potato” and “Smells Like Nirvana” come to mind as songs of his that target the style far more than they critique the original work), but these are unlikely to be tested because a) he pays royalties anyway, and b) hopefully no artist is stupid enough to sue him and trigger the greatest invocation of the Streisand Effect this world has ever seen.
Detaching it from the ad, GoldieBlox’s version of “Girls” is likely a valid parody, since its lyrics are a pretty direct criticism of the original. The fact that it is used solely for advertising hurts it (“The use, for example, of a copyrighted work to advertise a product, even in a parody, will be entitled to less indulgence under the first factor of the fair use enquiry, than the sale of a parody for its own sake”, Campbell) but does not disqualify it.
No, but a photograph certainly can be – and yes, this exact movie poster was the subject of a lawsuit from the original photographer (Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998); see also its Wikipedia article for comparison).
“Got 99 problems but the structural integrity of this suspension bridge 'aint one”
They are unlikely to be tested because Weird Al asks permission for every song that he uses as a parody and negotiates the licensing terms with the copyright holders. Coolio apparently had a problem with the parody that Weird Al did, but no lawsuit happened. I assume it was because Weird Al had negotiated a license with the label, so Coolio would have to fight against Weird Al and his own label.
Oh fuck this reply.
Seriously.
I envision it written with a fake crayon font with an oh-so-adorable backwards “S” to make it ever so cute.
I seem to remember reading that Weird Al secures permission for all of his works. Pretty cool of him actually.
Edit - Yup, he seeks permission from the original song writer. http://www.weirdal.com/faq.htm
Eh… fair point.
Yeah, I mentioned that. Since he’s licensing the stuff he reuses, he doesn’t need the parody defense (although it would work on most of his songs). Which is also why he doesn’t get sued.
It also makes him awesome.
Wierd Al always gets permission from the folks he’s parodying. Whether the law demands it or not, courtesy to other artists does.
Two things:
