Kathryn Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 What do you think? http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/the-beastie-boys-fight-online-video-parody-of-girls/?_r=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabeline Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I agree with the band, the song was used in an advertisement. ETA: I thought the video was really neat and the toy was awesome, but I was disappointed that after all that, the toy was pink. Girls can use other colors too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenKitty Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 It's the Beastie Boys song, used in an advertisement without consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted November 25, 2013 Author Share Posted November 25, 2013 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 It's the Beastie Boys song, used in an advertisement without consent. ...Without consent? What was their ad agency thinking of. If it was a youtube that wasn't trying to sell a product, I can see Fair Use. But to sell a product? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spryte Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitten18 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 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. I completely agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Either way, the back story of Goldiblocks is kinda cool -- Girl goes to Stanford for engineering, encounters the geek ceiling, etc. Worth a look: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katilac Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Either way, the back story of Goldiblocks is kinda cool -- Girl goes to Stanford for engineering, encounters the geek ceiling, etc. Worth a look: Goldieblox has GREAT marketing. I am not at all impressed with their toys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.