Beach Boys Lyricist Goes After Artist Who Dared To Paint Works Inspired By Beach Boy Songs
from the copyright-dreamin' dept
Peter Friedman alerts us to yet another ridiculous copyright claim (of which there have been a few) from a member of The Beach Boys. You may have heard that, last year, the Beach Boys' Smile album was finally released, despite being recorded in 1966. An artist, by the name of Erik den Breejen, found out about this, and he (a lifelong Beach Boys fan) set out to create a series of paintings inspired by the songs on the album. Sounds good, right? Art inspiring art. Not so much. After completing the works and getting set up with a gallery show to display the works, den Breejen reached out to Beach Boys lyricist Van Dyke Parks, who he figured would like to know about this. Turns out... that wasn't true. Instead, Parks shot back a cease-and-desist.Instead of fighting back with lawyers, den Breejen and the gallery have approached Parks himself to try to negotiate some kind of out-of-court agreement. Parks was already credited in the exhibition’s press release and in a booklet den Breejen distributed at the gallery, but soon he could be considered a collaborator — entitling him to a percentage of the proceeds. (Van Dyke’s manager did not respond to a request for comment.)It's difficult to see how this is not fair use, but since we live in a world where fair use isn't determined until after an expensive court process, we'll never know in this case.
Until the two sides settle their differences, the gallery has put on hold at least two sales inquiries
Update: Just some clarifications, as per the comments. Parks was a lyricist for the band, rather than a direct member. Separately the paintings do include lyrics from the songs, which should have been made clear. I don't see how either point really changes the overall analysis, however.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: beach boys, copyright, erik den breejen, lyrics, paintings, van dyke parks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lawyers like to support...
All the lawyers care about is strife. The more strife, the more fees.
Lose pays helps stop that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers like to support...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers like to support...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawyers like to support...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lawyers like to support...
How many is that? How do you know them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawyers like to support...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawyers like to support...
Do you think it's fair or reasonable to judge all lawyers based on your relationship/experience with your parents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawyers like to support...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lawyers like to support...
Do the 4 attorneys you know only care about strife?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers like to support...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawyers like to support...
Probably not true. The standard in the U.S. is that parties pay their own costs. Loser-pays is only for exceptional cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lawyers like to support...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawyers like to support...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bitch Boys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bitch Boys
Was getting upset, now not so much.
Context helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bitch Boys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bitch Boys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bitch Boys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bitch Boys
(also i bet those lyrics a publishied on hundrets of lyricssites anyway, so whats the point of the C&D)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bitch Boys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bitch Boys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bitch Boys
That doesn't justify Parks's reaction, of course (I think he's being a prick), but at least there may be legal grounds for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bitch Boys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use? Where's the fricken copyright violation? Where's the fricken infringement? Are you saying that if I paint purple on canvas and call it Haze of Purple I'm violating the estate of Hendrix's copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes.
When the Copyright Office says, �Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases�, well, that is just some lawyer-dudes saying that. It doesn't mean anything until you go to court, and get a real judge to say it. And that costs money. More money than you can afford.�.�. � �Capiche?
Don't violate copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pathetic
So here's a golden troll opportunity and they jump on it. I don't expect much else from washed up losers like these guys. I hope they reach an agreement but I won't be surprised if they don't, or if any agreement they do make is totally unfair.
I may have to go torrent Endless Summer purely out of spite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahem, sarcasm apart, fail band is fail. Artists that behave like this don't deserve any respect and I will make sure to keep my distance from anything related to them, including illegal downloads. Needless to say, I hardly believe that this is a way to make fans love you and send money your way. Total fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's difficult to see how this *is* fair use,
or any use.. Nothing was copied. Isn't copyright supposed to cover copying stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except the song lyrics, which are protected by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It would be a different matter if the work wasn't comprised entirely of his verbatim text, with only the alteration of coloring them. It's no different than his profiting from a book of their lyrics. If he had managed to write a book of poetry, would he have been wrong to sue the Beach Boys for profiting from the singing his text?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uh..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: uh..
How so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fare Use
It's all about the money honey... Nothing more... I was never a real fan of these Californicators: They've lost me for sure now... So that's what Van Dyke does... Parks....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This article and the following comments are so full of inaccuracies that it surpasses even the usual Techdirt BS quotient.
The Beach Boys aren't suing the artist.
In fact the Beach Boys have absolutely nothing to do with the cease and desist letter.
Van Dyke Parks worked with a member of the Beach Boys, under a work-for-hire situation, 46 years ago. His lyrics are the subject of the painter's work.
This sort of sloppy "reporting" is what we've come to expect here at Techdirt, which is really nothing but a dumpster for Mike Masnick's daily intellectual dishonesty and propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it were work for hire then that would mean he doesn't own the copyrights in question, and his cease-and-desist would be copyfraud.
I did, however, clarify the point concerning his role as a lyricist. That had not been clear in the original, and (contrary to your daily personal attacks), we aim to be as accurate as possible. That's part of the reason why we have open comments, so that knowledgeable people can add information to the discussion. Most people can do that without also being total assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know, except total assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If this isn't a clear case of fair use I feel bad for artists, and for art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The goal of Masnick, Google and the rest of certain parasitic internet "businesses" is to attack copyright. They can't create original art themselves, so they look to profit off the backs of those that do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A few nice bouncy tunes before they decided to be the California Beatles and the drugs dragged them into a pit. (All of which happened before they learned to play a note on their "instruments".)
So a visual artist decides to make a series of paintings inspired by the release, finally, of Pet Sounds and Parks decides to land on him with a truckload of lawyers.
There's something just a bit wrong with this. There's a difference between being celebrated and being ripped off. Parks can't see that difference.
Ya know something. I'm not one little bit surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The goal of Masnick, Google and the rest of certain parasitic internet "businesses" is to attack copyright. They can't create original art themselves, so they look to profit off the backs of those that do.
Maybe so, but copyright in itself is a lot of BS. Can you honestly tell me why it's ok for copyright to last 70 years past the life of the creator? So not only his children, but his grandchildren never have to work a day in their lives? Please! The same can be said about studios - they can't actually create the art, they just profit off the backs of those that do. I'm a translator - technically, my translations belong to me and I should retain copyright, in the sense that every time my translation is republished, I should get a cut (a very small sum, but still). In reality, big publishing houses consider it's ok to pay me just once for the translation and then use it forever without having to pay me a dime. Basically, I have absolutely zero rights to that translation, once the publishing house gets it. And guess what, sometimes the publishing house does not even pay the agreed upon price, coming up with excuses like "the book market is at an all-time low", sometimes they don't pay at all, because "the book will not be published at this time" - do I feel entitled to publish said translation on the internet for free? You bet! The TV station I worked for stipulated in the contract that I "voluntarily" give up copyright for my translations for 99 years - wanna know how many times I've seen reruns with my name on them, even though I stopped working for them 12 years ago? I'm one of the people who can't stand copyright, even though sometimes I benefit from it (that is when I find publishing houses with an ounce of ethics, which is rare). There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the artists should get rewarded for their work, which is why I always buy the things I love, to make sure that they keep doing what they're doing and that I will be able to enjoy them in the future as well. But there's also no doubt in my mind that sometimes the prices they charge are outrageous and that only a small part of that money actually gets to the artist. Copyright is fighting for the artist? Give me a break! I can't tell you how many times I discovered through "pirating" a series that I wouldn't have even heard about otherwise and then went out and bought it. The point is people who can afford it, buy it, people who can't wouldn't buy it even if there was no alternative. It's like Gucci claiming that they lost sales because of cheap counterfeit "Guggi" bags. Do they actually think that people buying the counterfeit product would suddenly rush to buy the real thing if the counterfeit was no longer available? Seriously? It's the same with movies. Do they actually think that people who can't afford it would suddenly decide to starve for a couple of days just so they can watch the latest block-buster?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This seems like a reasonable thing to say, but, in the interests of accuracy, I'm going to have to call you out on that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that has nothing to with the Beach Boys. He was paid a salary for his work for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So then it was not work-for-hire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think that's the point Mike is making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't being used in the discussion about copyright. The term is not mutually exclusive to copyright.
The copyrights Parks owns on lyrics from that album are a separate issue. Don't conflate them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you mean when you say "work for hire"?
I would caution that, since "work for hire" or "work made for hire" *is* a term of art used to refer to copyright ownership status, you might want to be careful using in some other manner. It is likely to lead to confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't being used in the discussion about copyright. The term is not mutually exclusive to copyright.
I have never heard the term used outside of the copyright context. I don't mean to cast aspersions -- though, you seem to throw ad homs around at any chance possible -- but perhaps this is a case where you heard a phrase "work for hire," had absolutely no clue what it actually meant, and then used it. Amusingly, of course, you used it in the context of accusing someone (me, in this case) of not knowing what I was talking about.
So, given the initial comment in this thread, would it be fair for me to state: "Never trust a music dork to know anything about copyright."?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if you actually knew anything about music, which you don't, or the time-frame that this particular music was created with union musicians, which you know nothing about, you might understand the meaning.
But clearly you don't.
You fucking worthless, uncreative gutter vermin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.rocketlawyer.com/document/work-for-hire-agreement.rl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What happened with Van:
You ask me to write songs with you.
I want to be paid for my time and creativity (a foreign concept to the the parasitic non-contributing members of society that live or die by this blog).
Our deal, made between you and me:
You agree to pay me, a member of the musician's union, for my time.
You also agree to grant me a piece of the back end: co-writer credit and half of the the copyright on this song(s), thus giving me publishing royalties on radio play, commercials, movie use, etc.
I make no claim on your band's RECORDS SOLD with my songs on it; I was not in your band, and your band's records were not advertised as me. I was only working on this album on a WORK FOR HIRE basis. I can not make any claims on that.
I can ONLY make claims on my songs when used outside of Beach Boys albums that are for sale.
Any use of Beach Boys albums that contain my songs rests within the domain of the Beach Boys. Not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The relationship you're describing is not a work made for hire relationship, because the lyricist retains his share of the copyright on the work he created.
The fact that he has no claim on the records sold does not change that fact, because records (i.e., mechanical reproductions) are subject to a compulsory mechanical licensing rate anyway (although it's common for songwriters to agree to a lower rate).
The fact that he was paid for his work does not make the relationship a "work for hire" relationship. This is a common misconception amoung musicians (and others).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if you're a lawyer, then I'm an astronaut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll wait until you return from orbit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that's the point Mike is making.
Yes, this is exactly the point I am making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without a written work made for hire agreement or an employment relationship, it's not a "work made for hire," so the photographer retains his rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, if it's work for hire, it means he doesn't hold the copyright. So... what is he suing over? Or are you mistaken in your claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use
But I am no good at writing this sort of thing up.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/create
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the 2 arts
Also is this again the mighty USA kicking the dutch and saying you will have our laws? Does cease and desist exist in Holland?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
f van dyke parks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use? No...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]