Adrock Going to Court.

[Micodin]

After Adam Yauch died in 2012, it was reported that his will prohibited the use of Beastie Boys songs in advertisements. Then, the band sued Monster Energy Drink for illegally using their music. On Tuesday afternoon, that trial will head to court. Adam Horovitz will take the stand at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in New York City.
In the group's lawsuit, they said that their music and likeness were used in various promotional videos for an event called Ruckus in the Rockies without their consent. They're seeking $150,000 in damages for each infringement.
Late last year, the Beastie Boys sued the toy company GoldieBlox over their use of the song "Girls". The two parties reached a settlement earlier this year.

source (http://pitchfork.com/news/55318-beastie-boys-monster-energy-drink-lawsuit-headed-to-court-this-week/)

Get 'em Adam!

[Kid Presentable]

I know it's not you, Mike, but it's interesting now that the angle in these stories is always Yauch's will. I understood they made the decision long ago not to allow their works in product ads. Yauch's will was just the only really public assertion of the fact.

I dont really have a point.

[Micodin]

I know it's not you, Mike, but it's interesting now that the angle in these stories is always Yauch's will. I understood they made the decision long ago not to allow their works in product ads. Yauch's will was just the only really public assertion of the fact.

I dont really have a point.

Every news source nowadays is basically TMZ. Journalist feel the need to remind us that Yauch has passed or mention his will in every story about the Beasties going forward.

[pm0ney]

But Yauch's will is at the crux of the lawsuit. It would be irresponsible journalism to not mention it. The boys sure do go to court a lot, huh?

[WesleyOHSnaps!]

So Mike's not going to court with Adam?

[abbott]

Im not sure, but I think Adrock enjoys court shows.

[Kid Presentable]

But Yauch's will is at the crux of the lawsuit. It would be irresponsible journalism to not mention it. The boys sure do go to court a lot, huh?

Yauch's will is at the crux of the reporting.

[pm0ney]

Yauch's will is at the crux of the reporting.

...?

[fonky pizza]

Im not sure, but I think Adrock enjoys court shows.

Lol :cool:

[abbott]

Lol :cool:

thats what it's all about.

[Kid Presentable]

...?

Yeah. On review it reads silly. I just thought that they would have taken this sort of legal action regardless of Yauch's wishes. Like it was long held, and the matter of law is anauthorised use or whatever (help, lawyers).

On a side note, the press write up about Adrock laughing, and having to identify Mike in a sailor outfit was hilarious. Hilarious. :D

[Micodin]

Back in 2012, it was reported that Beastie Boys had sued Monster Energy Drink for illegally using their music. Today, that trial went to court in New York. Now, Monster have released a statement regarding the lawsuit, saying that they initially believed to have received permission to use those songs.
Monster has no intention of litigating this matter in the media, but since the case has now received publicity we felt we should let the public know the facts as we see them. Monster in good faith believed it had obtained the rights to use a compilation of certain Beastie Boys music for an Internet video. The video recounted a snowboarding event in Canada that Monster sponsored where the after party featured many Beastie Boys songs played by the DJs in honor of the recent death of one of the Beastie Boys’ members. The music that Monster used was provided by one of the DJs [Z-Trip], who told Monster he had permission. When Monster was notified by the Beastie Boys that the company was mistaken in its belief that it had the proper authorization, Monster immediately removed the video from the Internet. The video received less than 14,000 views during the brief period it was online. This lawsuit is solely about what, if anything, Monster must pay to the Beastie Boys because of Monster’s good faith mistake. In Monster’s view the Beastie Boys are demanding sums that are far beyond any reasonable fair market value.

According to Billboard's report from the courtroom, Monster argued that the Beasties' claim of $1 million in damages and $1 million due to implied endorsement were "nonsense," arguing that damages shouldn't exceed $125,000.
The company's lawyers also attempted to establish that the Beasties' songs and likenesses have appeared in previous advertisements. Their example: Mike D's Nixon watch ads. (Proceeds from watch sales benefit Adam Yauch Park in New York City.) When Adam Horovitz was asked if that was Mike D wearing a sailor costume in the ad, he reportedly smiled and replied, "He sure is."

Shortly after Yauch died in 2012, it was reported that his will prohibited the use of Beastie Boys songs in advertisements. Late last year, the Beastie Boys engaged in a legal battle with the toy company GoldieBlox over the use of the song "Girls".

source (http://pitchfork.com/news/55343-monster-energy-drink-releases-statement-about-beastie-boys-trial/)

I know a little about sample clearances from having to do them... a lot. Anyhoo, I'm pretty sure if DJ Bumblefuck was spinning Beastie Boys tunes and I sampled that recording and used it on one of my songs (or advertisements in this case), I wouldn't ask DJ Bumblefuck if I could have permission. I would have to go through the Beastie Boys people.

Fuck Monster and their unhealthy drinks! Nothing but chemicals and sugar going into your body and doing who knows what.

ps. Mike looks nice in that Sailor Suit. I have the same image on a RSD slip-mat.

[cj hood]

This is the best thing they've done since Yauch passed. True Beastie fashion..... #RIPMCA

[dave790]

This write up is pretty funny (http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6099357/beastie-boys-monster-energy-trial-ad-rock-takes-stand)...

I might stick around or I might be a fad
But I won't sell my songs for no TV ad.

[pm0ney]

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/we-went-there-at-the-beastie-boys-vs-monster-energy-drink-trial-ad-rock-swears-to-tell-the-whole-truth/

[JohnnyChavello]

Yeah. On review it reads silly. I just thought that they would have taken this sort of legal action regardless of Yauch's wishes. Like it was long held, and the matter of law is anauthorised use or whatever (help, lawyers).

On a side note, the press write up about Adrock laughing, and having to identify Mike in a sailor outfit was hilarious. Hilarious. :D

The case is probably for copyright infringement and misappropriation of the right of publicity. There may be some state law claims for unfair competition included as well.

Yauch's will may only affect whether or not his music is licensed exclusively to third parties for commercial use. As a co-owner, his consent, or the consent of his heirs, would be necessary in order to grant an exclusive license, but not necessary for non-exclusive licenses, which could be negotiated by any co-owner. This is the default under copyright law and it would be possible for one co-owner to enter into these kinds of commercial licensing deals as long as they account to the other co-owners for their share of the profits. Now, it's possible to change the default rules by contract and the Beasties may have an agreement specifically stating that all licensing deals require the band to sign off unanimously. My guess is he knew Adam and Mike felt the same way (or knew they had an agreement in place reflecting this policy) and that this was a way to force his estate to honor that in perpetuity. It would also impact the estate's ability to license his likeness (as opposed to his music) to advertise products. So, it covers some bases, but as far as I know, there isn't a lot of caselaw on testamentary restrictions on copyright and post-mortem right of publicity licensing.

I didn't know Monster had an RIP MCA tag in the Monster energy font. They can go to fucking hell.

[Micodin]

I didn't know Monster had an RIP MCA tag in the Monster energy font. They can go to fucking hell.

Truth. Pure evil.

[Lyman Zerga]

monsters!

[Guy Incognito]

The company's lawyers also attempted to establish that the Beasties' songs and likenesses have appeared in previous advertisements. Their example: Mike D's Nixon watch ads. (Proceeds from watch sales benefit Adam Yauch Park in New York City.) When Adam Horovitz was asked if that was Mike D wearing a sailor costume in the ad, he reportedly smiled and replied, "He sure is."

.

thats their argument?? jesus. likening what they did( using something without permission) to an band endorsed/driven charity advert . that is low. bloody lawyers.

[YoungRemy]

"check out my butt"

[JoLovesMCA]

Mike D is lookin good! I love that smile. http://beastieboysgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=668

Proud of them. Kick their ass!

[pesto pizza]

Mike D is lookin good! I love that smile. http://beastieboysgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=668

Proud of them. Kick their ass!

I dont know how you do it jo
but thanks for the photos,I check your gallery every day.Even getty images dont have your speed of uploading and amount of new beastie pics:)

[JoLovesMCA]

I dont know how you do it jo
but thanks for the photos,I check your gallery every day.Even getty images dont have your speed of uploading and amount of new beastie pics:)

I'm the photo paparazzi I guess lol.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

The case is probably for copyright infringement and misappropriation of the right of publicity. There may be some state law claims for unfair competition included as well.

Yauch's will may only affect whether or not his music is licensed exclusively to third parties for commercial use. As a co-owner, his consent, or the consent of his heirs, would be necessary in order to grant an exclusive license, but not necessary for non-exclusive licenses, which could be negotiated by any co-owner. This is the default under copyright law and it would be possible for one co-owner to enter into these kinds of commercial licensing deals as long as they account to the other co-owners for their share of the profits. Now, it's possible to change the default rules by contract and the Beasties may have an agreement specifically stating that all licensing deals require the band to sign off unanimously. My guess is he knew Adam and Mike felt the same way (or knew they had an agreement in place reflecting this policy) and that this was a way to force his estate to honor that in perpetuity. It would also impact the estate's ability to license his likeness (as opposed to his music) to advertise products. So, it covers some bases, but as far as I know, there isn't a lot of caselaw on testamentary restrictions on copyright and post-mortem right of publicity licensing.

I didn't know Monster had an RIP MCA tag in the Monster energy font. They can go to fucking hell.

Nice post! Johnny, are you practicing in this area or just keeping up on the scholarly aspects?

[fonky pizza]

Mike D is lookin good! I love that smile. http://beastieboysgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=668

Proud of them. Kick their ass!

Mike, are you a model for Dolce&Gabbana?(y)

[Bernard Goetz]

Mike and Adam both looking fresh as daisies. Tight.

[YoungRemy]

Adrock took the stand again for day 2, Wednesday, and D spoke yesterday.


"We like sports."- Adam Horovitz

http://www.spin.com/articles/beastie-boys-ad-rock-monster-testimony-we-like-sports/

[JohnnyChavello]

Nice post! Johnny, are you practicing in this area or just keeping up on the scholarly aspects?

I practice entertainment law, but am no expert on trusts and wills. It's all interesting to me, though and I feel like they always take a really principled stand on intellectual property issues. I'm actually hoping against hope that the Trouble Funk case will set up more clarity on copyright, substantial similarity, and fair use in music.

I'm pretty sure, looking back on it, that about 100% of my interest in these issues circles back to my interest in the Beastie Boys and that late 80s/early 90s era in hip hop.

[Documad]

Today's story re Mike's testimony. (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/beastie-boys-rejected-schwarzenegger-request-sabotage-article-1.1812007) Mike wore athletic shoes to court.

[JohnnyChavello]

Today's story re Mike's testimony. (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/beastie-boys-rejected-schwarzenegger-request-sabotage-article-1.1812007) Mike wore athletic shoes to court.

Yo!

"The third member of the band, Adam (MCA) Yauch, died in 2012, and Diamond made it clear he and Horovitz would never put out new Beasties music without him.

“We have not been able to tour since MCA, Adam Yauch, died,” Diamond said.

“We can’t make new music.”

No idea whether this is missing context, but seems pretty to the point.

[Kid Presentable]

Seems fair.

[pesto pizza]

Yo!

"The third member of the band, Adam (MCA) Yauch, died in 2012, and Diamond made it clear he and Horovitz would never put out new Beasties music without him.

“We have not been able to tour since MCA, Adam Yauch, died,” Diamond said.

“We can’t make new music.”

No idea whether this is missing context, but seems pretty to the point.

well finally we have an answer and its kinda a relief and feels right.The bottom line is new tracks from the fall 2011 sessions may of had mca's vocals but would'nt of had mca final touches and input on production :)

[Documad]

Yo!

"The third member of the band, Adam (MCA) Yauch, died in 2012, and Diamond made it clear he and Horovitz would never put out new Beasties music without him.

“We have not been able to tour since MCA, Adam Yauch, died,” Diamond said.

“We can’t make new music.”

No idea whether this is missing context, but seems pretty to the point.

Yeah, the article makes it sound like Mike D said that in testimony. It would be interesting to hear how it came up.

[JohnnyChavello]

Yeah, the article makes it sound like Mike D said that in testimony. It would be interesting to hear how it came up.

Right? If it's an inference based on those two lines of testimony, and there's no information about what question he was responding to and who asked it, it's a leap - not a huge leap, but still a leap - to say he "made it clear" that they'd never make new music.

I'm not saying the article's wrong, but I don't know.

[YoungRemy]

I agree. clearly it's not clear because clearly people are interpreting it differently.

i interpret his testimony as addressing their income and how that would affect the amount of the settlement (2 million vs 125 thousand)

they are being bullied under cross examination as the big multi platinum global recording artists and Mike D is saying "no, we don't make any money anymore from making music or touring as the band beastie boys, so pay us what you owe us, bitches..."


along those lines...

[Documad]

It's funny that the Mike D watches are getting so much press because of this lawsuit. I bought some of the watches but I never understood where they came from -- it seemed like such a weird thing even at the time; they just sort of appeared on the internet.

[JoLovesMCA]

I agree. clearly it's not clear because clearly people are interpreting it differently.

i interpret his testimony as addressing their income and how that would affect the amount of the settlement (2 million vs 125 thousand)

they are being bullied under cross examination as the big multi platinum global recording artists and Mike D is saying "no, we don't make any money anymore from making music or touring as the band beastie boys, so pay us what you owe us, bitches..."


along those lines...

Well if they can still allow people to use their music and they turned down Arnold's big pay check then I really gotta give it to them. I mean who wouldn't want to keep making money?

I just really have so much fucking respect for this band. Here we have Jay Z worth god knows how much and it's not like the Beasties couldn't have cashed in more themselves..but they didn't. So yeah if somebody uses their music without permission PAY MY BOYS!

[Laver1969]

I agree. clearly it's not clear because clearly people are interpreting it differently.

i interpret his testimony as addressing their income and how that would affect the amount of the settlement (2 million vs 125 thousand)

they are being bullied under cross examination as the big multi platinum global recording artists and Mike D is saying "no, we don't make any money anymore from making music or touring as the band beastie boys, so pay us what you owe us, bitches..."


along those lines...

^^this sounds about right.

[cj hood]

Beasties got 1.7 mill

[JoLovesMCA]

Congrats Fellas.

Mr. Yauch would be super proud of you two right now. :cool:

[KENNY GUIDO]

Beasties got 1.7 mill

Yup, just heard it on the news(y)

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Awesome, Monster sucks.

[cypressphil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27728491

[MrSmiley1]

Beasties got 1.7 mill

Although I am happy for them winning this lawsuit, this money will just enable Ad-Rock to do more things with Bridget Everett :(

[abbott]

obviously a nice president is set.

it is bullshit that Monster reps get to hang out with the B-boys in court.

[CatchaGroove]

B-Boys awarded $1.7M


The Beastie Boys have had an embattled month, as their copyright suit against Monster Energy Drink finally went to trial last week. After spending the better part of the week delivering painstaking testimonies to a lawyer and a judge –who most certainly don’t get their impact on the culture they’re attempting to preserve– the fellas have finally gotten theirs, puling away $1.7 million dollars in damages from a suit that claimed Monster used five of the boys’ hits in an online promotional video. While the process seems to have stirred up some painful sentiments, at least the fellas are getting compensated, as it doesn’t seem they’ll be back in the studio or on tour any time soon. Put one up for The Beasties and their fallen brother in arms MCA as you bless the air this evening.What do you think?



http://www.okayplayer.com/news/the-beastie-boys-awarded-1-7-million-in-monster-energy-drink-lawsuit.html

[Bernard Goetz]

Any link that takes me Okayplayer automatically makes me search for D'Angelo album news, for ten plus years now.

[Kid Presentable]

Any link that takes me Okayplayer automatically makes me search for D'Angelo album news, for ten plus years now.

Hahaha gold (y)

[Bernard Goetz]

(y)
And I actually found something today! Not album news (and apologies to all for the mini-thread hijack) but D'Angelo sat for a long-ass talk with Nelson George last month:
http://www.okayplayer.com/news/dangelo-rbma-talk-nelson-george-recap-photos.html#slide1
I'm 30 minutes in - good stuff.

[cj hood]

Although I am happy for them winning this lawsuit, this money will just enable Ad-Rock to do more things with Bridget Everett :(

(y)

[Documad]

I hope Monster has to pay them every penny.

[KENNY GUIDO]

1.7 mill is great but i wonder if it was damages? i mean, even if they got permission 2 use the songs, they still would have to pay for the use. who was monster trying to fool? i cant believe it went to trial. this should have been resolved without a court. the beasties arent *hand shake* guys. they are professionals and u would think the people at monter were as well.

[Kid Presentable]

I'd be particularly fucked off about the RIP MCA thing they put in the promo. In the Monster font? Gross.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Although I am happy for them winning this lawsuit, this money will just enable Ad-Rock to do more things with Bridget Everett :(

I think a 1.7 million dollar phallus for Bridget Everett to gyrate upon while Ad-Rock and Mike D cage dance within the big metal balls will be hard for most Beastie Boys fans to take in a music video.

[fonky pizza]

^ oh my.. lol :D

[Micodin]

What a bunch of fucking babies! Adrock and Mike D aren't doing the stuff I want them to do. They should do what I want instead!

Waahhh!!!

[POMP]

What a bunch of fucking babies! Adrock and Mike D aren't doing the stuff I want them to do. They should do what I want instead!

Waahhh!!!

(y)

[Lex Diamonds]

It's funny that the Mike D watches are getting so much press because of this lawsuit. I bought some of the watches but I never understood where they came from -- it seemed like such a weird thing even at the time; they just sort of appeared on the internet.
I found one face down and forgotten at the back of a display cabinet at a local streetwear store- paid about 20% of what people are now paying for them online. I will either keep it forever as a memento of how the Beastie Boys shaped my childhood or wait til fans are paying stupid money for them and shot it.