Copyright infringement or fair use?

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

The Beastie Boys vs Goldiblox Princess Machine ad.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll say parody.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

But is that enough for it to be covered by "fair use?"

 

[tomBitonti]

Doesn't seem to be enough of a parody for me. The degree to which the song "makes fun" of the earlier song seems too small.

The first two definitions of Parody that I found ...

https://www.google.com/#q=Parody+definition

noun:

an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.

"the movie is a parody of the horror genre"

synonyms: satire, burlesque, lampoon, pastiche, caricature, imitation, mockery; More
an imitation or a version of something that falls far short of the real thing; a travesty.
"he seems like a parody of an educated Englishman"
synonyms: distortion, travesty, caricature, misrepresentation, perversion, corruption, debasement More

verb:

parody; 3rd person present: parodies; past tense: parodied; past participle: parodied; gerund or present participle: parodying

1. produce a humorously exaggerated imitation of (a writer, artist, or genre).

The song does mimic the original song, and ironically turns the original message around, but there doesn't seem to be enough humor.

I'd say ... if the song were *only* to turn around the original message to one more positive to girls, then it would be OK for me. But this song is for selling stuff. (For me), the commercial aspect overwhelms the parody.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Deset Gled]

I'll say parody.

I can see two major arguments against the claim of parody:

First, the Goldiblox song centers around the idea that girls are rejecting the offerings of normal toymakers. While there are individual lyrics of the Beastie Boys song that are outwardly misogynistic, it's important to read the lyrics as a whole. The actual story being told is about a girl that rejects the romantic offerings of a DJ. As both songs are centered around the concept of a girl rejecting the status quo, the Goldiblox song cannot be considered transformative of the original work; it is merely derivative.

Second, while there are some parody-like elements in the Goldiblox song, they are parodying things like toy dolls and the status of women in education. There are no lyrics referencing music, romance, or anything else directly mentioned in the Beastie Boys song. This means that Goldiblox is making a parody of the world at large, but they are not directly parodying the Beastie Boys. And the US courts have a previously upheld that the parody must be specific to the original work to be protected.

 

[The_Silversword]

Well, after reading the article, Im surprised that its the Beastie Boyz clainming copyright infringement, I had initially assumed that it was the other way around, that how them rap guys roll aint it? Lookin at you Vanilla Ice!

 

[Nytmare]

From someone who works frequently in the advertising end of the entertainment industry, I can't believe that the people who made this decision thought that they should go forward without getting permission from the Beastie Boys. That was incredibly stupid on their part, unless they were (for some ungodly reason) assuming that the bad press would somehow end up being good "free" advertising for them.

 

[tomBitonti]

I can see two major arguments against the claim of parody:

(First paragraph omitted)

Second, while there are some parody-like elements in the Goldiblox song, they are parodying things like toy dolls and the status of women in education. There are no lyrics referencing music, romance, or anything else directly mentioned in the Beastie Boys song. This means that Goldiblox is making a parody of the world at large, but they are not directly parodying the Beastie Boys. And the US courts have a previously upheld that the parody must be specific to the original work to be protected.

This. Much better expressed than my feeble attempt

Thx!

TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

There is an article about this in today's (Tue, 26-Nov-2013) New York Times.

Notable items from the article:

1) The Beastie Boys admired the artistry of the song, and were in agreement in regards to the message.
2) But, the Beastie Boys have a strict policy of not allowing their songs to be used in advertisements.
3) The Beastie Boys were not contacted prior to the usage.
4) The company (something Blox) apparently sued the Beastie Boys when asked for information about the usage. (This one I don't understand.)

Thx!

TomB

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Godiblox caves in.