Beastie Boys Say They Don't Want Music In Ads, But Fair Use Doesn't Care

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

On Friday, we wrote about the declaratory judgment lawsuit that toy company GoldieBlox filed against Universal Music, the Beastie Boys and a few related parties, arguing that their commercial, which parodies the BB's song "Girls" is fair use and not copyright infringement, following what they claimed was a threat from the band's lawyers. Over the weekend, some in the press started quoting a representative of the Beastie Boys who said no such threat ever happened:

A representative for the Beastie Boys explained: "There was no complaint filed, no demand letter (no demand, for that matter) when [GoldieBlox] sued Beastie Boys."

Today, the Beastie Boys, clearly in damage control mode, sent an open letter to the company:

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.

Now, it is true that some in the press have mistakenly stated that the Beastie Boys sued GoldieBlox, and that's clearly not the case. GoldieBlox filed for declaratory judgment, which is a fairly standard move after someone claims that you violated their rights. It's not a lawsuit seeking money -- just to declare that the use is fair use. While the Beastie Boys say they made no threat or demand, the lawsuit notes that their letter (which still has not been revealed in full) made a direct claim that the video was copyright infringement, and also that this was a "big problem" that has a "very significant impact."

Many people in our comments and elsewhere who have defended the Beastie Boys have pointed out that the band does not allow its music to be used in advertisements. And, in fact, that in Adam Yauch's will, it explicitly stated that none of their music was ever to be used in advertising. And, from the Beastie Boys' open letter, it appears that was their main concern.

But, here's the thing: as principled as Yauch was about this, and as admirable as it may be for him and the band to not want their music appearing in advertisements that does not matter under the law. If the use is considered fair use, then it can be used. Period. There is no clause in fair use law that says "except if someone's will says otherwise." The very point of fair use is that you don't need permission and you don't need a license.

So the fact that they don't like their work in advertisements is entirely meaningless to the legal question. In fact, if anything it may harm the claim that it's infringement. I've spoken to a bunch of copyright lawyers about this, and almost all of them agree that this is likely fair use (with some arguing that it's a totally clear-cut case). Some have argued that because it's an advertisement for a company that precludes any possibility of fair use, but that's absolutely not true. Plenty of commercial efforts have been considered fair use, and, in fact, many of the folks who rely the most on fair use are large media companies who are using things in a commercial context. Furthermore, the Supreme Court explicitly stated in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. that commercial use can be fair use, noting that if commercial use made things automatic infringement, it would destroy fair use:

If, indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of § 107, including news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities "are generally conducted for profit in this country." Harper & Row, supra, at 592 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Congress could not have intended such a rule, which certainly is not inferable from the common-law cases...

And later, in overturning the appeals court ruling that went the other way:

It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew's parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" rendered it presumptively unfair. No such evidentiary presumption is available to address either the first factor, the character and purpose of the use, or the fourth, market harm, in determining whether a transformative use, such as parody, is a fair one. The court also erred in holding that 2 Live Crew had necessarily copied excessively from the Orbison original, considering the parodic purpose of the use.

Both of those clearly apply here as well. Some have pointed out that GoldieBlox didn't "declare" this video a parody. But, once again, in the very same case, the Supreme Court notes you don't need to do that:

We note in passing that 2 Live Crew need not label their whole album, or even this song, a parody in order to claim fair use protection, nor should 2 Live Crew be penalized for this being its first parodic essay. Parody serves its goals whether labeled or not, and there is no reason to require parody to state the obvious (or even the reasonably perceived).

That's not to say the commercial nature of this venture won't play into any analysis. It is certainly one factor in many. However, as Ken White points out, if this weren't a commercial, there's absolutely no doubt that it's fair use, as it hits on pretty much every other factor. Furthermore, the very fact that the Beastie Boys refuse to allow their songs in ads actually works against them because they can't legitimately argue that they lost money because of this, since they've outright declared that they won't license music for such things. So no money could be lost.

And, in fact, this is exactly what fair use is for: to enable people to use music, without permission, in situations that create a very different kind of work where the copyright holder would almost certainly not grant permission.

Filed Under: adam yauch, advertising, beastie boys, copyright, fair use, parody, permission
Companies: goldieblox, universal music

Video Highlights Earlier Beastie Boys Copyright Lawsuit & MCA's Thoughts On Sampling

from the de-minimis? dept

Bloomberg Law has put together a short video about Adam Yauch and the sampling lawsuit filed against the Beastie Boys the day before his death. Though the voiceover guy sounds a little like it's his first time reading the script, the video brings up some interesting tidbits.

One is a 2003 sampling lawsuit brought against the Beasties in which they triumphed: the Ninth Circuit ruled that a flute sample they took from a James Newton song was protected by the de minimis doctrine. Basically the court found the brief sample to be too insubstantial to qualify as copyright infringement. What the video mentions briefly (but doesn't go into in detail) is the fact that, two years later, the infamous Bridgeport ruling in the Sixth Circuit stated that samples are never protected by de minimis and must always be licensed no matter how short or simple they are. In the beginning, some major labels actually opposed that ruling, because they had already released lots of albums with samples on them and were worried about a storm of litigation. But since then, the industry has come to essentially treat Bridgeport as gospel, even though it's only binding in the Sixth Circuit and other rulings (like the Beastie Boys flute sample) have gone the other way. There are some key differences between the rulings, though: the Newton decision was about compositional rights (the Beastie Boys had licensed the sample of the recording) whereas Bridgeport was about sound recording rights.

The video also highlights a quote from Yauch in a 2004 interview with Wired Magazine, when he was asked about unlicensed samples coming back to haunt them. His response? "I think there's a statute of limitations on that stuff." This is a point a few people have brought up (because it seems so completely insane to face a lawsuit over an album that has been hugely popular for over 20 years), but the legal details are a bit more complex. The countdown clock for the statute of limitations on copyright infringement doesn't start ticking until all infringement has ceased—but Paul's Boutique has been selling continuously all these years, and was re-issued for its anniversary in 2009. If this new lawsuit goes to trial (which doesn't seem likely given the way sampling lawsuits normally go these days, but the Beastie Boys have yet to make a statement) then the statute of limitations would likely be used to argue that the Beasties are no longer liable for earlier album sales, but it wouldn't get them off the hook entirely.

Filed Under: adam yauch, beastie boys, bridgeport, fair use, mca, paul's boutique, sampling

Chappelle Show Creator Gives Grieving MCA Fans A Treat, Viacom Gives Them The Finger

from the how-nice-of-them dept

In Viacom's continuing efforts to make itself look pretty clueless and unsympathetic, it has decided to issue a takedown over a previously unseen clip of the Beastie Boys performing on The Chappelle Show, which was uploaded to YouTube by Chappelle Show co-creator, Neal Brennan. The episode it was filmed for never aired as it was supposed to be in Season 3 of the show, which famously (and tragically) never happened because Dave Chappelle decided to walk away from the show. It's clear that Brennan uploaded the video as a tribute to Adam Yauch/MCA following his death. And that seems like a great gesture -- the kind of thing that Viacom might celebrate. As both of the links above note, the show was never aired, so this clip was just "gathering dust." There has been some talk that Viacom wanted to put together new shows using existing clips -- so I'm guessing that's part of the thinking that went into this (perhaps I'm being generous in assuming any thinking went into this at all).

Either way, it's actions like these that make people distrust and dislike big companies like Viacom even more. Here was an easy way to do something good. Viacom could have (and probably should have) celebrated this tribute, even to the point of directly calling attention to Brenna's YouTube upload. Instead, it went legal, and comes out looking like an unsympathetic bully.

Filed Under: adam yauch, chappelle show, dave chappelle, mca, neal brennan
Companies: viacom

Bad Lawsuit, Worse Timing: Beastie Boys Sued Over Infringing Samples On Seminal Albums

from the well-that's-just-goddamn-lovely,-isn't-it? dept

Well, this is just sad. When we reported the unfortunate news of Adam "MCA" Yauch's death, we pointed to the EFF's call for an appropriate tribute to the beloved artist: an end to the legal war on sampling. The Beastie Boys produced some of the earliest sample-based music—including their seminal Paul's Boutique, widely seen as one of the best and most influential albums ever—just before the courts started coming down hard on sampling, more or less entirely tossing out the concepts of fair use, transformative work and de minimis copying that should protect samplers in many cases. Most experts agree that, today, an album like Paul's Boutique could never be officially released, since licensing the hundreds of samples used would cost exorbitant amounts—but that hasn't diminished the album's importance, nor has it stopped countless producers from continuing to work with unlicensed samples and release their work as bootlegs. In other words, the law does not match reality: sampling is a valid and vital form of creativity that can and will continue, even though nowadays it's either impossibly pricey or just illegal. What better tribute could there be to one of the fathers of sample-based music than to finally officially legitimize it as the important (and amazing) art form that it is?

Instead, we get the opposite. AllHipHop reports that, in a bout of incredibly unlucky timing, music label Tuf America filed a copyright lawsuit against the Beastie Boys the day before Yauch's passing. At issue are samples from Licensed to Ill and Paul's Boutique, which Tuf America claims were taken from a handful of their songs.

Tuf America said they did a thorough sound analysis of the tracks in question and concluded that the Beastie Boys illegally incorporated elements of the songs without permission.

To complicate the matter, Tuf America claims The Beasties and Capitol Records continue to profit off the album, by way of anniversary and commemorative releases of Licensed To Ill and Paul’s Boutique, which was released in 1989.

Tuf America is seeking a trial to determine the amount of punitive and exemplary damages, if any.

One would think that the simple fact that a "thorough sound analysis" was necessary means this is clearly a case of transformative work, but unfortunately, as mentioned, the courts have pretty much completely eliminated that defense when it comes to sampling. Moreover, where has Tuf America been this whole time? The Beastie Boys albums came out in 1986 and 1989, and now, a quarter-century later, Tuf America is claiming they deserve a payout? Their legal argument will, by necessity, rely on significant rulings that came out after the albums, which were released under the common sense assumption of the time: that sampling was creative and transformative art that didn't require a license.

The timing here is almost certainly just bad luck, and Tuf America must be rather worried about the PR nightmare this will surely incite. However I can't say I feel that bad for them: even setting aside Yauch's death, I find their actions despicable. They are attacking a piece of classic art just to cash in on someone else's success. If the Tuf samples were really so integral to the success of the Beastie Boys albums, then they would have had plenty of opportunities to capitalize on that over the last two decades. Instead they chose a legalistic get-rich-quick scheme. Shameful.

Last month, when 50 Cent was sued over a sample on a free mixtape he released, I asked when hip-hop's biggest stars will start speaking up about copyright and educating their fans about the fact that the music they love and respect is, in the eyes of the courts, illegal. This new incident might just kick off that process—nobody is going to be happy about what Tuf America is doing, and a lot of people who had no idea that sampling is illegal are going to see the coverage of this lawsuit (which is sure to be far greater than for your average sampling lawsuit) and discover just how broken the law is.

I truly hope this confluence of events can kick-start the necessary momentum to start fixing copyright law and getting the courts to recognize the validity (and fair use/transformative aspects) of sampling. This is not about capitalizing on Yauch's death—he and the Beastie Boys helped open the world's eyes to a rich and unique new approach to music that informed everything that came after, with samples finding their way into countless genres beyond hip-hop and becoming, essentially, an exciting new instrument that musicians everywhere started teaching themselves to play. The introduction of sampling was as important as that of distorted guitars or electric keyboards, and changed music just as much—but since day one, legal respect for sampling has been in steady decline and is now virtually zilch. It would be a wonderful thing if, amidst the tragedy of Yauch's death, we were able to help him give the world one more gift: a new attitude about sampling that will allow the next generation's Beastie Boys to pursue their artistic ideas without fear of being randomly sued 20 years later.

Filed Under: adam yauch, beastie boys, fair use, mca, paul's boutique, sampling
Companies: capitol records, tuf america