Creativity declining? one of your band members dead? no need to worry, just sue everyone off the face of the earth.
Beastie Boys settle with toy maker over Girls copyright dispute
The remaining members of the Beastie Boys have quietly settled their curious legal spat with US toy maker Goldieblox. The hip-hop stars bowled a sueball at Goldieblox in December last year, after the toy San Francisco-based company - which specialises in building blocks purported to get little girls interested in engineering …
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 15:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
You're missing some of the story AC. The Beasties came to an agreement that none of their music would be used in advertisements. With one of the band now dead, that agreement is probably going to assume more importance in the minds of the surviving members; mixed as it is with bereavement. That bit is pure speculation, of course.
Possibly not knowing about this, the toy company used the music; but whether they knew or not, they still didn't ask permission.
The Beasties heard about this and sent them a (polite for Beasties) "cut it out" note.
The toy company replied with a lawsuit.
The Beasties countersued. And it looks like they won. I'm glad for them.
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 17:00 GMT NogginTheNog
"see how you feel when it runs on a tv advert and you get squat"
They wouldn't be getting squat though, they'd be receiving royalties from the use just as expected. It was the usage itself, not payments for, that was their problem, since they'd specifically stated that they never wanted their music used to sell product.
-
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 17:28 GMT asdf
>Creativity declining? one of your band members dead? no need to worry, just sue everyone off the face of the earth.
Yeah too bad the surviving members of the band have made more off royalties this year than you will make in your entire life probably. The last thing they need is cash as evidenced by the fact they refuse to allow their music in commercials. Besides as the article shows they didn't sue they countersued and won.
-
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 13:47 GMT Hans 1
Beastie Boyz are cool kids, I like their some of their music ... I have all their albums (I paid for them).
I usually side with the perpetrators of copyright "theft", but here, I side with Beastie. I hate it when ads use music without asking permission, worse, when they use a cover - covers in ads usually suck.
Besides, ads convey an image - that image is then reflected on the band.
-
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 14:02 GMT dogged
Re: Who sued who?
Timeline -
1. Goldieblox run advert pimping their somehow not-sexist "Lego for girls".
2. Beasite Boys send letter requesting (not demanding) that they stop using the song "Girls" on it in accordance with Adam Yauch's last wishes.
3. Goldieblox sue Beastie Boys. I know but that's what happened.
4. Beastie Boys countersue under legal advice.
5. Media go batshit crazy.
6. Goldieblox retracts unwinnable bizarre lawsuit.
7. (This article) - Beastie Boys drop countersuit.
My take-home from all this was "if the next one's a girl, she gets Lego. Fuck gender-specific toys".
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 17:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Is nothing immune to dickwads from marketing and their obsession with pink?
Looks like mauve and cyan to me.
And I'll give you these ones for free...
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 14:02 GMT DaLo
Re: Who sued who?
It gets quite confusing now that some El Reg authors have started using the word 'drop' and 'dropped' in an illogical way which can make a sentence at best ambiguous but often incoherent.
However in this case you are correct that the author was exclaiming that Goldieblox was the antagonist in the original lawsuit. They sued because the Beastie Boys, or more likely their representatives, had threatened to sue due to their unlawful use of their music.
Goldieblox sued in an attempt to get a summary judgement that their use was fair use (presumably it is advantageous to be the plaintiff in a suit rather than a defendant).
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 14:05 GMT Aqua Marina
Re: Who sued who?
It's exactly what happened. The toy makers preemptively sought "Injunctive Relief" to stop the Beastie Boys from sueing them for using their song. The Beastie Boys obligingly did follow up with a lawsuit.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/28/goldieblox_apologises_to_beastie_boys_over_girls_parody/
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 17:41 GMT asdf
Re: The hidden beauty of U.S. copyright law.
>The hidden beauty of U.S. copyright law.
Umm its not US Patent Law. It still sucks because it get extended anytime Disney gets a hair up its ass and thinks Steamboat Willie will become public domain like all the old fairy tales ole Walt ripped off to get rich.
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 19:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The hidden beauty of U.S. copyright law.
Tthe parody needs to exist for the sake of satire itself. Al Yankovic typically manages to go a little further and parody not just the original song but satirise a topical subject at the same time. Now promoting a fictional product to mock a real one, or real advertising, is parody. Promoting a real product is not.
But this toy genuinely looks a bit rubbish. Someone's punting a sub-standard construction system at girls in the hope that they won't notice.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 15:41 GMT sisk
Let this be a lesson
If you use someone's creation without asking permission and they decide to be nice and politely ask you to stop instead of immediately executing their legal options then the proper response is not to sue them. If you do they're going to countersue and win.
What do I get out of this whole thing? First, the Beasties have a little more respect from me (since they sent a polite letter saying 'please stop infringing our stuff' instead of a DMCA demand). Second, my daughter will never have Goldieblocks.
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 16:41 GMT Malcolm Weir
Re: Let this be a lesson
Please lay off the spin.
Seeking declaratory judgment is the appropriate response to someone threatening a lawsuit that you believe to be merit-less. We have all heard of situations (often involving patent trolls) where part of the game plan is to drive up the costs of a "potential infringer" so that the "potential infringer" finds it easier to settle than fight. Seeking declaratory judgment is the appropriate and most practical way to get a simple answer to the key question: is the supposedly infringing use an actual infringement or fair use?
Now, regardless of whether you or I think it was (or wasn't), if the toy company believed that they were covered by the parody exemption (and remember, the lyrics were heavily modified and the "plain meaning" of the result was the complete opposite from the original), then having some "intellectual property rights management" company come the heavy hand (which is what happened) may legitimately result in a desire to get a court to say that no, actually you're on safe ground.
To their credit, when the artists (as opposed to the "IP rights management" company) started talking to the toy company, the toy company responded very differently (pulling the ad). Possibly in order to protect their position in case it all went pear shaped, the artists subsequently filed suit... but this seems as reasonable a position as asking for declaratory judgment, i.e. an appropriate step based on their position (right or wrong).
(The above comment is factually erroneous in the assertion that the original contact to the toy company was "nice" or "polite" or indeed from the Beasties).
-
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 19:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: doing a "Snoop Dog"
Actually, I think it's quite a neatly done advert; it's just the product it's advertising is a pathetic embarrassment.
I mean, the latest Lynx ad is a genuinely heart-in-the-mouth moment of television when you see it for the first time; the fact that it ends with a promotional message for teenage rutting-gas shouldn't detract from some masterly (not to mention highly topical) short-form film-making.
-
Tuesday 18th March 2014 23:04 GMT dial033
"encourages stealing from others."
I really like the hipocrisy in that statement, since stealing from other works one of the fundaments of rap music. Does "Amen Break" ring a bell? "Millions" of songs use that sample. BB also used it, yet the guy who played it on the original record didn`t receive one lousy cent although a lot of people made a healthy profit on his work.
-
Wednesday 19th March 2014 00:50 GMT Colin Ritchie
Re: "encourages stealing from others."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/permission-sampled-music-sample-clearance-30165.html
The BBs sampled anyone they could reach, the nature of Hip Hop is to canabalise any other music to make a fresh new sound, ripping off another artist's work without permission is very likely to attract legal attention.
Weird Al Yankovic always asks permission before recording and distributing parody versions of other artist's work. He has never released any of his Prince parodies because Prince refused to let him.
If you respect an artist you should act the same way. Lack of respect leads to litigation.
Go ask the Justified Ancients of Mumu who had to burn the entire stock of their first album 1987 just because ABBA took exception to their baby voice synth version of Dancing Queen, used without permission.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-