I heard Weird Al always seeks permission first. Jeez, people.
2 Likes
They copied the original photo of Demi Moore, and put Leslie Nielsenâs head on it. Itâs not just a âmagazine cover ideaâ itâs a copied photograph.
" itâs advertising a creative work which is, itself, a parody- not a toy line"
A movie is a product just as much as a toy line. And a big business product as well. The production of Naked Gun 33 1/3 involved a lot more money than GoldieBlocks has to work with. The film cost $30 million to make and grossed over $50 million in domestic box office.)
And a toy line involves creative work. Thereâs sculpting or modeling the pieces, choosing the shapes and engineering them to work together, and thereâs the writing and design of the accompanying storybook. Since GoldieBlox arenât based off of licensed properties like Star Wars, itâs all entirely new work.
I⌠Iâm stunned. After all these years, my cherished mental image of the seemingly limitless talents of Mr Nielsen⌠shattered in the blink of an eye.
Damn trick photography!
The poster stated that artists do not sue Weird Al because they do not want the bad publicity. This seems to miss the point that he is getting permission. Why would an artist give permission for a specific parody, negotiate some sort of contract, and then contemplate suing because they do not like the parody that they just approved? That does not make sense.
1 Like
OK, now tell me why the Iron Chef always wins.
One of lifeâs great mysteries.
It was a different pregnant woman.
OMG Drama.
-
Nobodyâs telling them they have a problem with the toys. Just with this one soundtrack for this one ad.
-
âBut HE got away with itâ has no legal standing. A copyright violation is a copyright violation. The fact that someone else chose not to protest, or even if this artist chose not to protest a previous use of the song, does not provide any legal cover whatever.
Their ad agency were idiots for not getting permission â or, more accurately, for not having asked permission, been refused, and redesigned the ad around another song. Period.
1 Like
Doh, so they did. My mistake. They still copied the overall look of the original, which photographers tend to frown on. Itâs not unheard of for a company to want to license a photographerâs work, balk at the price, and then have a cheaper photographer replicate the original in a new shoot.
Anyway, Leibovitz sued, and Paramountâs use of a model instead of retouching the original didnât help her case.
The person I was responding to was writing as if a parodic ad selling a parody film is somehow more valid than a parodic ad selling toys.
What? The point was that an advertisement parody of a photograph was used to sell an unrelated product (a film); the original photographer, Annie Leibovitz, did protest in court, and lost, because the parodic ad was deemed fair use.
Lots of people have been opining that the GoldieBlocks ad couldnât be fair use because itâs by a company, or because itâs an advertisement. Leibovitz v. Paramount shows that a company can use an artistâs work without permission in a parodic advertisement for a separate product, and have that use declared to be fair use, and thus not a copyright violation.
ââBut HE got away with itâ has no legal standing. A copyright violation is a copyright violation.â
Unless itâs fair use.
Who made you a Federal judge? Thatâs where the decision is made, and prior cases such as Leibovitz v. Paramount suggest that there is a good case to be made that the GoldieBlox ad would qualify as Fair Use and thus not a copyright violation.
Yep, I know itâs a company whose products will never enter my home.
Yay?
2 Likes
Iâm not a judge.(Iâm not even a lawyer, though I have friends who are IP lawyers, including of the crusading variety.) Iâve just had reason to investigate copyrightâs implications w/r/t my own works, and I know where enough of the pitfalls are that I stand by my statement: Their ad agency, and their ad agencyâs lawyers, were idiots for unnecessarily opening this can of worms.
If you insist upon a judge, then taking it to court was exactly the right thing to happen. Unfortunately they chose to settle, so you wonât get a chance to have your theory tested.
Absolutely true, we, the parents of young girls who are the target audience for their product, sure as shit know who âGoldiebloxâ is, and know to absolutely never send these slimy manipulative douches any of our hard earned money. Itâs honestly been a great warning for me personally, as I had previously been thinking of trying to get my daughter a âGoldiebloxâ set for ChristmasâŚ
1 Like
Just buy the fucking Lego. Thatâs what weâre doing.
3 Likes
Building blocks were pretty gender neutral. Of late they have slid into âboys onlyâ territory, unless they are pink.
I donât like it, I donât get it, and Iâm glad my nieces donât care and play with âboyâ building blocks anyhow. But if you look at the recent ads for sets like Lego, itâs pretty clear that what was once âneutralâ has somehow become âfor boysâ.
1 Like
We wanted to take a song we werenât too proud of, and transform it into a powerful anthem for girls.
This is the line that bothers me the most. âA song WE werenât too proud ofâŚâ?
Do they even have a right to be proud (or not) of a song they had no hand in creating?
âHere. Iâm not proud of what you did, so I FIXED it for ya.â
3 Likes
For the Leibovitz case, I do not think that you ignore the fact that the film was a parody, so one would expect the advertisements to parody something.
The fact that the ad makes a parodic comment on the original does not end the first-factor analysis, however, because the ad was created and displayed to promote a commercial product, the film. â This advertising use lessens the âindulgenceâ to which the parodic ad is entitled. â See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 585, 114 S.Ct. at 1174. â Paramount seeks to mitigate the negative force of the advertising purpose by arguing that the advertisement should be viewed as an extension of the film, rather than merely an advertisement for it. â Paramount emphasizes the general jocular nature of the film, as well as the filmâs specific humorous treatment of pregnancy and parenthood.
Though the advertising purpose of a parodic copying should not be entirely discounted simply because the ad promotes a humorous work, there is some slight force to Paramountâs argument. â For those who see the movie, the parodic comment of the ad might reasonably be perceived as reenforced by the kidding comments of the movie concerning pregnancy and parenthood.
LINK: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1306605.html
Just for clarity, there was no agency. It was self-produced by Sterling and her husband, and - hereâs the best part - sheâs worked as a marketing director. Thereâs no way she didnât know about licensing issues.
1 Like
I would think just the opposite (tbf Iâm out of the loop) Either way 2 wrongs donât make a right.
Why couldnât they make blocks for everyone? (Hint: Tough racket. By including boys they lose their niche)
1 Like
