Your question EXACTLY defines the problem were all dancing around: 'How can copyright fulfill that purpose if it blocks the creation and publication of derivatives?' This is where existing copyright law has failed our society, artists and enterprises. Creating a derivative work should be just as simple and permission free as 'covering' a song! I would propose that anyone can sample or quote from existing music to create a new copyright that splits credit and revenue with the holders of the original property.
I completely agree with you as far as the legalistic and ethical points, and I'm sure any court will concur. However, GoldieBlox IS winning in terms of a massively successful advertising campaign. I doubt they ever cared about any legal decision, obviously they preemptively sued the Beasties to get even more attention.
What argument? I didn't comment on fair use. I only gave you the facts that contradict the 3 elements of your statement: "2 Live Crew -did not get permission, -nor license anything, -and certainly did not split the income with the rights holders for Roy Orbison's song." You are WRONG an every count. I can go throughout it again but perhaps since you can't admit you are wrong maybe it's too humiliating for you? -2 Live Crew asked for permission, and ultimately got it. -they DID license the song - they DID split income
Can you read? or do you just repeat what other people tell you? 2 Live Crew DID ultimately get permission, DID license and certainly DID split the income with the rights holders for Roy Orbison's song. Here are the facts: 2 Live Crew asked for permission, offering to license Pretty Woman, and offered ALL credit and publishing income PLUS a fee to the the publishers of Roy Orbison's song. When this generous offer was refused, (racism possibly), 2 Live Crew took spectacular financial risk by releasing it anyway. They credited the original writers. It was never their intention to deny the writers credit or income. When the resulting lawsuit became inconclusive the two parties settled out of court. "Under terms of the settlement, Acuff-Rose dismissed its lawsuit of infringement against the group while 2 Live Crew agreed to license the sale of their version of the Roy Orbison song. " Here is a simplified synopsis of the case from a legal website: "The trial court ruled that the 2 Live Crew version is a parody, that parody is a form of criticism and comment, and that it is therefore "fair use" and protected from infringement suits. Acuff-Rose appealed this ruling. The next court up the ladder, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed with Acuff-Rose, holding that the purpose of the 2 Live Crew version was not comment or criticism, but to make money, and that so much of the original song was copied, (particularly the repeating bass riff which is the song's hook) that it was not a protected fair use. 2 Live Crew appealed to the Supreme Court. Despite what you may have heard or read, the Supreme Court did not resolve the case by ruling that 2 Live Crew's parody is fair use. Rather, the Court ruled that parody can be a form of protected fair use, and then sent the case back down to the trial court to determine whether this particular parody is, in fact, fair use."
no contradiction, creating a parody is free speech and fair use. exploiting a parody is different thing entirely. In this particular case, the advertiser has either licensed the recording, or commissioned it as 'work for hire'. So the master is 'cleared'. However, since this new creation uses the title and melody of the Beastie Boys song, it requires their permission for the publishing license. Parodies are a huge part of music publishing and it's standard for the parodist to split credit and income with the original writers.
' "commercial" to some degree or another' what the hey does that mean? I'm talking about a commercial as in an advertisement. For instance if Gillette put out a TV commercial for razors using 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman. 'Big hairy woman, all that hair ain't legit, 'Cause you look like Cousin It.' You think 2 Live Crew wouldn't slap them with a lawsuit?
' "commercial" to some degree or another' what the hey does that mean? I'm talking about a commercial as in an advertisement. For instance if Gillette put out a TV commercial for razors using 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman. 'Big hairy woman, all that hair ain't legit, 'Cause you look like Cousin It.' You think 2 Live Crew wouldn't slap them with a lawsuit?
Fair use is codified at Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which gives a non-exclusive set of four factors courts will consider in deciding whether a use is fair or not. These factors are: 1. the purpose and character of the use, 2. the nature of the copyrighted work, 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and 4. the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Corporations do not have the right to use songs in advertising without the permission of the songwriters! Do you really wanna go down the rabbit hole where Exxon can promote fracking to the sound of Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' ? From knowing the Beastie Boys, I am sure of 2 things: If an actual ARTIST requested a derivative work license for 'Girls' from the Beasties, they would easily get it. If someone posted on youtube a parody with well intentioned lyrics like these, they would enjoy it. That's not what this is about. It's an Advertisement! Does Masnick truly believe corporations are super entities that can ignore the laws the rest of us have to follow?
Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
I'm sorry for my flippant use of the word hobbyist. You describe your teachers efforts vey eloquently. It's no small accomplishment to build a regional fanbase for a group with original material.
Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
'the right to TRY to earn a livelihood' yes , your wording is more precise and exactly what I meant. I'm glad you mention the need for artists to collaborate with business partners. Where are all the beady eyed hustlers that buzzed around musicians in the past? The commercial and artistic breakthroughs of other eras was often because of the entrepreneurial incentives for people like Berry Gordy, Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham. But the entrepreneurs of today are internet cloud-barons reigning over a feudal structure of unpaid musical serfs. If the music streaming services can graduate from a venture capital-Ponzi scheme model into truly viable businesses, then maybe they can fill the gap being left by dwindling radio and television royalties.
Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
keeping a band going IS expensive, it's the biggest factor in band breakups. sure any twit can tinker around in his bedroom and call himself an artist but he's really a hobbyist. all things being relative, I think the 20 or 30 thou per annum I need for basic food and shelter would be an 'insurmountable barrier' if I didn't get it from royalties. Still saving for the 50 thou it will take to mount a tour. As far as 'pro Bono artists', I applaud the enthusiasm of hobbyists, (if not their music) but I fail to see how their existence should negate the right of professionals earn a livelihood. If I grow oranges and give them to friends, that's great, but I wouldn't accuse farmers that they're 'greedy' for selling theirs.
On the post: Beastie Boys Say They Don't Want Music In Ads, But Fair Use Doesn't Care
Re: Re: money where mouth is
On the post: Beastie Boys Say They Don't Want Music In Ads, But Fair Use Doesn't Care
money where mouth is
On the post: Beastie Boys Say They Don't Want Music In Ads, But Fair Use Doesn't Care
Re: damn shame
'How can copyright fulfill that purpose if it blocks the creation and publication of derivatives?'
This is where existing copyright law has failed our society, artists and enterprises.
Creating a derivative work should be just as simple and permission free as 'covering' a song!
I would propose that anyone can sample or quote from existing music to create a new copyright that splits credit and revenue with the holders of the original property.
On the post: Beastie Boys Say They Don't Want Music In Ads, But Fair Use Doesn't Care
Re: GoldieBlox winning
However, GoldieBlox IS winning in terms of a massively successful advertising campaign.
I doubt they ever cared about any legal decision, obviously they preemptively sued the Beasties to get even more attention.
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
'fair use' rainbow
always looking for the pot o gold at the end of the 'fair use' rainbow.
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
Re: Re: 2 Live Crew settlement
"2 Live Crew -did not get permission,
-nor license anything,
-and certainly did not split the income with the rights holders for Roy Orbison's song."
You are WRONG an every count.
I can go throughout it again but perhaps since you can't admit you are wrong maybe it's too humiliating for you?
-2 Live Crew asked for permission, and ultimately got it.
-they DID license the song
- they DID split income
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
2 Live Crew settlement
or do you just repeat what other people tell you?
2 Live Crew DID ultimately get permission, DID license and certainly DID split the income with the rights holders for Roy Orbison's song.
Here are the facts:
2 Live Crew asked for permission, offering to license Pretty Woman, and offered ALL credit and publishing income PLUS a fee to the the publishers of Roy Orbison's song.
When this generous offer was refused, (racism possibly), 2 Live Crew took spectacular financial risk by releasing it anyway. They credited the original writers.
It was never their intention to deny the writers credit or income.
When the resulting lawsuit became inconclusive the two parties settled out of court.
"Under terms of the settlement, Acuff-Rose dismissed its lawsuit of infringement against the group while 2 Live Crew agreed to license the sale of their version of the Roy Orbison song. "
Here is a simplified synopsis of the case from a legal website:
"The trial court ruled that the 2 Live Crew version is a parody, that parody is a form of criticism and comment, and that it is therefore "fair use" and protected from infringement suits. Acuff-Rose appealed this ruling.
The next court up the ladder, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed with Acuff-Rose, holding that the purpose of the 2 Live Crew version was not comment or criticism, but to make money, and that so much of the original song was copied, (particularly the repeating bass riff which is the song's hook) that it was not a protected fair use. 2 Live Crew appealed to the Supreme Court. Despite what you may have heard or read, the Supreme Court did not resolve the case by ruling that 2 Live Crew's parody is fair use. Rather, the Court ruled that parody can be a form of protected fair use, and then sent the case back down to the trial court to determine whether this particular parody is, in fact, fair use."
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
Re: it's an Advertisement!
exploiting a parody is different thing entirely.
In this particular case, the advertiser has either licensed the recording, or commissioned it as 'work for hire'. So the master is 'cleared'.
However, since this new creation uses the title and melody of the Beastie Boys song, it requires their permission for the publishing license.
Parodies are a huge part of music publishing and it's standard for the parodist to split credit and income with the original writers.
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
fantasy island
In the real world using someone's song for advertising requires :
a master license , and a
publishing license.
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
Re: Re: it's an Advertisement!
what the hey does that mean?
I'm talking about a commercial as in an advertisement.
For instance if Gillette put out a TV commercial for razors using 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman.
'Big hairy woman, all that hair ain't legit,
'Cause you look like Cousin It.'
You think 2 Live Crew wouldn't slap them with a lawsuit?
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
Re: Re: it's an Advertisement!
what the hey does that mean?
I'm talking about a commercial as in an advertisement.
For instance if Gillette put out a TV commercial for razors using 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman.
'Big hairy woman, all that hair ain't legit,
'Cause you look like Cousin It.'
You think 2 Live Crew wouldn't slap them with a lawsuit?
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
Re: Re: it's an Advertisement!
Advertisers using whatever music they want without permission is the issue here.
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: You gotta fight...
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You gotta fight...
but note #3:
Fair use is codified at Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which gives a non-exclusive set of four factors courts will consider in deciding whether a use is fair or not. These factors are:
1. the purpose and character of the use,
2. the nature of the copyrighted work,
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and
4. the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
Re: Re: You gotta fight...
On the post: Missed Opportunity: Beastie Boys Should Have Supported Viral Parody 'Girls' Song, Rather Than Claiming Infringement
it's an Advertisement!
Do you really wanna go down the rabbit hole where Exxon can promote fracking to the sound of Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' ?
From knowing the Beastie Boys, I am sure of 2 things:
If an actual ARTIST requested a derivative work license for 'Girls' from the Beasties, they would easily get it.
If someone posted on youtube a parody with well intentioned lyrics like these, they would enjoy it.
That's not what this is about. It's an Advertisement!
Does Masnick truly believe corporations are super entities that can ignore the laws the rest of us have to follow?
On the post: German Director Proposes 'One-Stop Shop' For Free, Instant, But Non-Exclusive Licenses To Offer Films Online
Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
You describe your teachers efforts vey eloquently.
It's no small accomplishment to build a regional fanbase for a group with original material.
On the post: German Director Proposes 'One-Stop Shop' For Free, Instant, But Non-Exclusive Licenses To Offer Films Online
Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
yes , your wording is more precise and exactly what I meant.
I'm glad you mention the need for artists to collaborate with business partners.
Where are all the beady eyed hustlers that buzzed around musicians in the past?
The commercial and artistic breakthroughs of other eras was often because of the entrepreneurial incentives for people like Berry Gordy, Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham. But the entrepreneurs of today are internet cloud-barons reigning over a feudal structure of unpaid musical serfs.
If the music streaming services can graduate from a venture capital-Ponzi scheme model into truly viable businesses, then maybe they can fill the gap being left by dwindling radio and television royalties.
On the post: German Director Proposes 'One-Stop Shop' For Free, Instant, But Non-Exclusive Licenses To Offer Films Online
Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
sure any twit can tinker around in his bedroom and call himself an artist but he's really a hobbyist.
all things being relative, I think the 20 or 30 thou per annum I need for basic food and shelter would be an 'insurmountable barrier' if I didn't get it from royalties. Still saving for the 50 thou it will take to mount a tour.
As far as 'pro Bono artists', I applaud the enthusiasm of hobbyists, (if not their music) but I fail to see how their existence should negate the right of professionals earn a livelihood.
If I grow oranges and give them to friends, that's great, but I wouldn't accuse farmers that they're 'greedy' for selling theirs.
On the post: German Director Proposes 'One-Stop Shop' For Free, Instant, But Non-Exclusive Licenses To Offer Films Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
Next >>