Jump to content

Menu
Giving You and Your Child a Road Map to the Best Possible Education
The Well-Trained Mind Community

GoldieBlox's "Girls": Fair Use Parody or Merchandising Copyright Violation?

Kathryn

By Kathryn,
in The Chat Board

 Share

Recommended Posts

nmoira

nmoira

Posted
Posted

There's precedent for fair use as a transformative new work as it is a parody of the original song.

 

Here's what the EFF has to say:

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/beastie-boys-goldieblox-fair-use-lawsuit

 

 

Summary:

 

 

 

Taken together, the factors favor fair use. Moreover, the video furthers the purposes of copyright. It serves the public interest by advancing political criticism and debate regarding sexist stereotypes about girls and engineering. What is more, it’s a classic example of growing the cultural commons by remaking existing cultural works to create new insights and expression. That kind of creativity what fair use is for. And it’s part of what made the Beastie Boys great.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Farrar

Farrar

Posted
Posted

I'm torn.  It's clearly a parody, and as I understand the law, that's allowed.  But it's also clearly an ad, and that's not.  I feel like both sides have a valid argument.  If an independent group had made the video without the ad message at the end, it would be allowed, as I understand things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kathryn

Kathryn

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm torn. It's clearly a parody, and as I understand the law, that's allowed. But it's also clearly an ad, and that's not. I feel like both sides have a valid argument. If an independent group had made the video without the ad message at the end, it would be allowed, as I understand things.

That's exactly how I feel!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Mungo

Mrs Mungo

Posted
Posted

I'm torn.  It's clearly a parody, and as I understand the law, that's allowed.  But it's also clearly an ad, and that's not.  I feel like both sides have a valid argument.  If an independent group had made the video without the ad message at the end, it would be allowed, as I understand things.

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
poppy

poppy

Posted
Posted

When I heard the ad, I thought it was cool of the Beastie Boys to give permission.

I'm shocked they used that song without even asking. It's famous and very closely identified with that band.

And no girl in the market for that device should be familiar with the original song, it is not safe for little kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spryte

Spryte

Posted
Posted

I'm torn.  It's clearly a parody, and as I understand the law, that's allowed.  But it's also clearly an ad, and that's not.  I feel like both sides have a valid argument.  If an independent group had made the video without the ad message at the end, it would be allowed, as I understand things.

 

I agree with this.  I'm torn, too.

 

We love this video, it's had a lot of playtime in our house - we've contributed to a few of the 8 million (?) views!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Farrar

Farrar

Posted
Posted

But they didn't use the song.  They wrote and performed a complete parody of the song, a la Weird Al or something.  And it is, as the article points out, a legitimate parody that is commenting on the sexism in the song by subverting the original message to make a new one, a message that's not inherently commercial either - it's not like they rewrote it into a jingle.  That is allowed in fair use.  The issue is that they then also tried to sell things with it, which...  well, it's unclear, but usually that wouldn't be allowed.  So I don't think it's as black and white as "they used the song therefore they're wrong."

 

It seems like both sides have dug in, which is unfortunate.  I wonder if there's some way for Goldieblox to remove the commercial message that's at the end of the video (and is literally like ten seconds of the whole thing) and work out a compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Mungo

Mrs Mungo

Posted
Posted

It's interesting that it was GoldieBlox that filed a lawsuit, not the other way around. Is that the mode of business now? Someone questions you, so you file a pre-emptive lawsuit?

 

It looks like one of the things complicating matters is that Adam Yauch specified in his will that his music would never be used in advertising. Therefore, it seems his estate could be required to fight this issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
poppy

poppy

Posted
Posted

But they didn't use the song.  They wrote and performed a complete parody of the song, a la Weird Al or something.  And it is, as the article points out, a legitimate parody that is commenting on the sexism in the song by subverting the original message to make a new one, a message that's not inherently commercial either - it's not like they rewrote it into a jingle.  That is allowed in fair use.  The issue is that they then also tried to sell things with it, which...  well, it's unclear, but usually that wouldn't be allowed.  So I don't think it's as black and white as "they used the song therefore they're wrong."

 

It seems like both sides have dug in, which is unfortunate.  I wonder if there's some way for Goldieblox to remove the commercial message that's at the end of the video (and is literally like ten seconds of the whole thing) and work out a compromise.

It is an extremely popular viral video and now a news story, there is no legit way to disassociate it from the toy.  And the "parody" song is ABOUT toy marketing, really.

 

Here's what the Beastie Boys say: "“Like many of the millions of people who have seen your toy commercial ‘GoldieBlox, Rube Goldberg & the Beastie Boys,’ we were very impressed by the creativity and the message behind your ad. We strongly support empowering young girls, breaking down gender stereotypes and igniting a passion for technology and engineering. As creative as it is, make no mistake, your video is an advertisement that is designed to sell a product, and long ago, we made a conscious decision not to permit our music and/or name to be used in product ads. When we tried to simply ask how and why our song ‘Girls’ had been used in your ad without our permission, YOU sued US.†

 

Here's what the toy company lawyer says: "“GoldieBlox states in its complaint very clearly that their lyrics are making fun of, in essence criticizing the Beastie Boys lyrics in the song ‘Girls,’"

 

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/11/beastie-boys-deny-suit-threat-against-goldieblox/

 

It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth that they sued the Beastie Boys and are outright saying they are criticizing them.  The video works because musically and especially rhythmically  ----- it's a great song.   Classless, Goldieblox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nmoira

nmoira

Posted
Posted

It's interesting that it was GoldieBlox that filed a lawsuit, not the other way around. Is that the mode of business now? Someone questions you, so you file a pre-emptive lawsuit?

Yes, because of the high costs and drawn out nature of litigation. GoldieBlox is only seeking a declaratory judgement that their parody is fair use. Robin Thicke is seeking the same against Marvin Gaye's family for What's Going On.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kitten18

kitten18

Posted
Posted

It is an extremely popular viral video and now a news story, there is no legit way to disassociate it from the toy. And the "parody" song is ABOUT toy marketing, really.

 

Here's what the Beastie Boys say: "“Like many of the millions of people who have seen your toy commercial ‘GoldieBlox, Rube Goldberg & the Beastie Boys,’ we were very impressed by the creativity and the message behind your ad. We strongly support empowering young girls, breaking down gender stereotypes and igniting a passion for technology and engineering. As creative as it is, make no mistake, your video is an advertisement that is designed to sell a product, and long ago, we made a conscious decision not to permit our music and/or name to be used in product ads. When we tried to simply ask how and why our song ‘Girls’ had been used in your ad without our permission, YOU sued US.â€

 

Here's what the toy company lawyer says: "“GoldieBlox states in its complaint very clearly that their lyrics are making fun of, in essence criticizing the Beastie Boys lyrics in the song ‘Girls,’"

 

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/11/beastie-boys-deny-suit-threat-against-goldieblox/

 

 

It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth that they sued the Beastie Boys and are outright saying they are criticizing them. The video works because musically and especially rhythmically ----- it's a great song. Classless, Goldieblox.

I completely agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
katilac

katilac

Posted
Posted

Goldiblox utterly lost me with their new set. The company that rants about toys for girls being stereotypical and stifling brings out a set that features purple, pink, princesses, and pageants? //shudders// 

 

Yes, they claim the storyline points out that "creativity and friendship are more important than any pageant" - but why on earth bring pageants, of all things, onto the radar of very young girls? It's designed for ages 4 to 9; at 4/5/6, my kids would have had no idea what a 'pageant' was, and I would have been less than impressed with a toy that introduced the idea. Particularly a toy that markets itself as breaking gender stereotypes. 

 

I think they misstepped badly with this entire rollout. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
poppy

poppy

Posted
Posted

Weird Al gets permission for his songs.

 

This is an advertisement, not just a parody. It's even a finalist in a contest for a small business to win a commercial TV spot during the SuperBowl. I like the ad, but I think GoldieBlox handled this poorly.

 

Hi might now, but he didn't always. I remember Coolio being REALLY upset about Amish Paradise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Word Nerd

Word Nerd

Posted
Posted

Hi might now, but he didn't always. I remember Coolio being REALLY upset about Amish Paradise. 

 

That's been his personal policy throughout his career. His record label told him they had permission from Coolio for him to spoof Gangsta's Paradise, but Coolio later claimed that was not correct. Weird Al sent an apology as soon as he found out about the miscommunication, and they have since worked it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...