Beastie Boys sued by company that took their song without clearance...

[ChiTown24]

n/m

... so what do people think of the actual product being advertised ?

[BERFAB]

I really hope the Beasties crush this one in court. The reason it really gets me angry is, if you view the entire commercial, "Girls" is not only prominently featured, it is central to the entire premise. Additionally, this is obviously a VERY EXPENSIVE ad. Not only is this an elaborately shot and edited commercial, but there appears to also be some very expensive looking animation involved at the end.

My point is that NO EXPENSE WAS SPARED by the producers, EXCEPT for the music clearance, without which, the ad would just fall apart.


-B

I have no idea what your yardstick for 'very expensive' and 'no expense spared' are, but the entire company behind the toys started with kickstarter funding a tiny fraction of the advertising budget of a major toy manufacturer, and the video was done by an independent video producer known for successful viral videos for one otherwise-relatively-unknown bands, with a team of five people; pretty small potatoes overall.

If the idea is that this is a big toy company picking on the little guys, it's not. The Beastie Boys could probably buy out the company several times over every year. They're worth tens of millions, each. 75 million each according to one report I've seen.

And just so it's clear for those who might not get it; they can't be suing for money off anyone, just the right for their video to be allowed as fair use. Fighting for their right to parody, in fact.

I don't know this company, and I don't really care if they're big or small. I'm only judging by the commercial. If you've seen it, you can't ignore that there are some very high production values there. And, I'm only guessing here, but I'm pretty sure that the ad agency was paid. The director was paid. The actors and kids were paid. The grips, set master and prop master were paid. The location was rented and paid for. Lighting guy? Paid. Cameras, lights, and on set recording gear? Rented and paid for. Animation production - Paid.

Ironically, even the guys who recorded, produced and played on the "Girls" parody were paid.

The only guys not paid, or at least asked permission, were the guys that wrote it.

No, it wasn't MY song. But there is something out of whack here. Everyone's budgeted in except the original composers. So if you're spending that kind of money, what's the excuse for not getting clearance?

If anyone on KVR were to go commercial with even 1 uncleared sample in their work, they would run the risk of litigation. But to have the party that DIDN'T clear it sue the composer simply for asking the question? That takes some serious balls.

[BERFAB]

And just so it's clear for those who might not get it; they can't be suing for money off anyone, just the right for their video to be allowed as fair use. Fighting for their right to parody, in fact.

True. Except that the party being sued (in the US) must incur substantial legal fees. We don't have a 'loser pays' system.

Also, I still think it's a really ballsy move to ask for this type of ruling AFTER you've already done the deed. The old maxim is true: "Better to ask for forgiveness than permission..."

[ChiTown24]

The only guys not paid, or at least asked permission, were the guys that wrote it.

It's not just "at least asked permission" ... it's entirely about permission. It's not a payment thing {they're bazillionaires, as noted}, not a royalties thing, it's a principle thing. They don't want their music directly linked to advertising for commercial products. And also, they didn't write it. The wrote the original on which the commercial is based.

Just sayin.


at any rate, while people discuss this, I think it's important to keep very much in mind that the Beastie Boys got in contact in a very friendly, non-letigious manner about {a} they're position on advertising, which they acknowledged as unfortunate as they admired the proposed goals of the toy company {b} why they weren't asked permission. Read their open letter to the company.

we'll never know how the exchange could have played out in a friendly out-of-court-no-one-getting-sued manner, because the company responded with an aggressive preemptive lawsuit. Douchebags. Not just because it's a shit way to respond, but because it might set a very poor precedent against diplomacy in these types of situations in the future {or maybe mr thicke gets that credit ? i didn't pay much heed to that case} for other established musicians in the same position - Send a friendly letter to the copyright infringer asking what's up ? Better not, look what happened to the Beastie Boys. Better just sue first to cover your ass.

[chaosWyrM]

the toy company is probably going to loose. that is not a "parody". they arent making a comment about the original song, they are using it for advertisement and monetary gain.

[ChiTown24]

that is not a "parody".

it's patently a parody, but I feel {like you} because it's an advertisement for a commercial product it doesn't qualify as "fair use"... which parodies usually fall under. the monetary gain thing you mention, I'm not so sure, but the advertisement for a commercial product... I feel more certain about. that's not "fair use" as far as I can see. Maybe it's been done before {parodies for commercials} ? who knows, maybe they happened with permission, these things need to be challenged to find out where the legal boundaries lay.

the legal experts will battle it out.

[hibidy]

Ok. After listening to both I felt a little throw-up in my mouth. My thoughts:

-crap song. absolutely awful. Any idiot with the playschool toy and some stupid idiotic lame "I'm so adolescent it hurts" mentality could do that. THAT got big time dope money? No wonder the world is a joke.
-As it's been proven time and time again (think satriani vs coldplay) this is going nowhere other than settlement. A "melody" (god gag me for even calling that) is not exactly copyright material.
-This company should be ashamed of themselves for being idiots, but WORSE is threads like this getting people like me to click on those links to see absolutely absurd BS.
-The butthead boys should not be associated with children. The company in question should be held accountable for being idiots.....may the worms of Arrakis devour you.

Thus concludes the lesson.

[whyterabbyt]

in the heady days of sampling and the golden era of hip hop, the heady days of pre-broadband-internetz-&-mp3 even, the heady days of astronomical record sales, yes it's true... quite some musicians ended up rich by creating their music in part by sampling other music. It's true. Those was some crazy times, eh ?

That's not quite in the same spirit as taking someone's music to flog some cheap tat.

Well, unless you think the Beastie Boys efforts were basically cheap tat too.

I'll join you in whipping the beastie boys from the sidelines when they sue some talented up & coming musician for sampling or parodying their shit.

Sorry, I missed the part of copyright law where it specifies fair use was only applicable to musicians.

Until then, I'm happy to see the adorable start-up crushed like some fleeing pedestrian extra in the 'Intergalactic' Godzilla city-fight-scene parody video {oh the irony}, by the Beastie Boys

Im sure you are.

In no small part because the Beastie Boys were quite amicable in how they contacted the start-up, being complimentary and pleasant but simply stating their concerns re: advertising. Reply ? An aggressively worded lawsuit... part of which attacking the {satirically} sexist nature of the original as a justification of their actions. Lame...

An 'aggressively worded' lawsuit, eh? How mean. If only they'd stuck to a meek, timidly, nicely apologetic and properly girly worded lawsuit, then.

[spaceman]

It makes you angry? Really?

It leaves me rather cold, I have to admit.
Or warm. It's quite warm where I am now.

[whyterabbyt]

[I don't know this company, and I don't really care if they're big or small. I'm only judging by the commercial. If you've seen it, you can't ignore that there are some very high production values there. And, I'm only guessing here, but I'm pretty sure that the ad agency was paid. The director was paid. The actors and kids were paid. The grips, set master and prop master were paid. The location was rented and paid for. Lighting guy? Paid. Cameras, lights, and on set recording gear? Rented and paid for. Animation production - Paid.

Did I claim nobody was paid? No. Did you claim this was made with 'no expense spared'. Yes.

Shoots for an advert with 'no expense spared' will have catering crews bigger than the team of five that worked on this.

Ironically, even the guys who recorded, produced and played on the "Girls" parody were paid.

The only guys not paid, or at least asked permission, were the guys that wrote it.

Wrote the original you mean. Its not been legally decided whether this version counts as their work or not, which is the actual point of the lawsuit.

No, it wasn't MY song. But there is something out of whack here. Everyone's budgeted in except the original composers. So if you're spending that kind of money, what's the excuse for not getting clearance?

The 'excuse' is that its a parody, protected under fair use. And they want that confirmed legally. They probably wouldnt have been looking for that legal confirmation that it was fair use if the Beastie Boys hadn't claimed that they had no right under fair use. This is a defensive move.

[whyterabbyt]

the toy company is probably going to loose. that is not a "parody". they arent making a comment about the original song

well, yes, they are. The EFF agree.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/b ... se-lawsuit

they are using it for advertisement and monetary gain.

and we all know that parody cant be parody when there's commercial gain involved, do we?

[Kriminal]

I think the real reason they want the song pulled is because its crap


#justsayin

[spaceman]

I think the real reason they want the song pulled is because its crap

I'm all in favour for aggressively worded lawsuits against crap music.

[metamorphosis]

It makes you angry? Really?

Sometimes i think you are one really really weird person..If you don't find yourself upset by someone using your work to earn,sell,get,money from (again) your work may i ask you - if you are so cool and don't care for such things, may i send you my paypal data so you can send me all your hard earned income. Before you answer me, remember you are one really cool person about this...

Shut up

[Kriminal]

I think the real reason they want the song pulled is because its crap

I'm all in favour for aggressively worded lawsuits against crap music.

I meant the original, tho it goes for the new one too